Election 2015

[a_majoor]

          But the fact remains that Justin Trudeau has only four months to reverse a decline that has been underway now since last October. Above all, he must, he simply must, convince francophone voters in Quebec to rethink their
          commitment to Mr. Mulcair and the NDP."[/i][/i][/font][/size]

The problem for the Young Dauphin is the decline has been underway for a lot longer than last October. Consider the LPC has not released a new coherent policy platform since 1993's "Red Book". Paul Martin promising (yet again) to implement national day care in the 2006 election should have told everyone the Liberals had been out of ideas for more than a decade. Yes, Stephan Dion did offer the "Green Shift", but it was so incoherent that no one could even understand what it was about. Any theoretical advantages of a carbon tax (and I will argue that the reality will far outweigh any theoretical benefits) were totally lost on the voter. Ignatieff turned out to be even worse; his "Big Thinkers" conference essentially came up with "more of the same" as the answer to the direction the LPC should move in the 21rst century.

Even after the exist of Mr Ignatieff, the two leadership contenders who actually offered policy platforms ended up sounding like either Jack Layton clones (Marc Garneau) or Stephen Harper wannabe's (Martha Hall Findlay). I'd be very hard pressed to say what exactly was Liberal about either platform, which may be why the LPC eventually voted for no platform at all....

So until there is a real and total housecleaning in the LPC and they actually can articulate a vision of who they are and what they stand for (besides "Power at any cost"), i.e. become a transformative rather than a transactive party, they are rightly cast into the wilderness.

(edit because autocorrect sucks)

 

[Underway]

Please provide examples of these two organizations providing funding to Canadian political parties.

Don't put words into my mouth.  I said political organizations.  NRA and Right to Life are by their very nature political organizations, and funnel money, expertise, and help into their Canadian counterparts.  Just like the Sierra Club of Canada, Green Peace, dozens of churches and  organizations on both (all) sides of the political spectrum.  To think otherwise is wrong.  The Tides foundation isn't funding the NDP directly its funding like minded political organizations and entities in Canada to help its cause.

As for your information, I just looked at the first few articles that came up on google when I typed in NRA Canada. Not the best google fu but I'm not doing a research project here.

http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/nras-hemispheric-reach

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/05/13/hepburn_us_gun_lobby_brings_hardline_tactics_to_canada.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nra-involved-in-gun-registry-debate-1.923766

But of course people are going to discount two of those right away because they are from the THE STAR and the CBC.  Not sure about America's quarterly....  For the record I'm not a gun control guy. I'm pretty much against it.  But I'm also an science and information guy, and can't stand confirmation bias.  I prefer to come to my decisions after weighing the pros and cons of the data, not just ignoring the cons.

I believe that the point was that for those voting AGAINST the conservatives vice FOR the NDP/Liberals/Greens to make sure that they do the research to get a clearer picture of what they're voting for. It doesn't matter, in this case, than the conservatives may or may not have funding for outside agencies too but rather that the NDP/Liberals/Greens also have their hands dirty and may not provide the alternative that people are looking for.

True.  No party if perfect. However if there is outside funding of a federal party then it has to be very cleverly disguised and not done directly.  Gone are the days when the federal Liberals could just walk up to the Royal Bank and get a cheque for $100,000 as a party donation and then another $20,000 from each VP.

 

[Kilo_302]

Trudeau's cowardly stance on C-51 is beginning to cost him. He made a cynical calculation in the wake of the Ottawa attacks and he can't back down from it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/veteran-resigns-ns-candidacy-in-protest-against-trudeaus-support-for-security-bill/article24956480/

“As a soldier, I helped defend Canada’s democracy by participating in peacekeeping, peacemaking and war,” he wrote. “Having opposed oppressive political systems in the name of Canadian democracy, I refuse to support any entity complicit in the creation of a repressive act which assaults Canadian liberty.”

Mr. MacLeod said that he heard concerns from Liberal supporters in Central Nova about the bill. He said, too, that there was opposition to it from supporters of all the parties.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Coipyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a useful analysis* of M Trudeau's socio-economic policy initiative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-youre-in-the-right-tax-bracket-trudeau-has-a-platform-for-you/article24247698/

This, in my opinion, is the key:

    First: "Mr. Trudeau and his team of advisers believe that the real crisis of our time is the concentration of wealth among upper-income earners at the expense of the distressed middle. Their proposed solution is to expropriate a portion of
              that wealth and deliver it, not to the oppressed, but to the suburbs, to two-income, white-collar commuters who wonder why they work so hard and never get a raise. This tax cut’s for them;" and

    Second: " Also, a $60,000 income in Trois-Rivières delivers a much greater level of affluence than a $60,000 income in the Lower Mainland. Using income to define the middle class defies economic geography."

I agree with John Ibbitson that:

    "... Mr. Trudeau has clearly decided to ignore the NDP. If they want to tailor policies for lower-income workers, if they want to guarantee subsidized daycare spaces, if they want to fight climate change, the Liberals are happy to let them ...
      It can be exceedingly dangerous to turn your back on Thomas Mulcair. But Mr. Trudeau clearly sees this election as a contest between himself and Mr. Harper;" and

    "The Prime Minister has dedicated his entire political life to understanding, representing and defending the suburban middle class. He will fight Justin Trudeau to the political death over them."

I think M Trudeau has made two blunders, neither of which may be overly serious:

    1. He's defined the "middle class" in too narrow a range; and

    2. He's leaving his left flank, where M Mulcair has strength, open.

Back on the "battle for the soul of the 'middle class'," David Akin has posted an interesting comment:

    "A new report out today from OECD shows that household wealth inequality in Canada has actually decreased from 2006-2012. The poorest group did just about as well as the top 10%. The middle group did best of all over that period
    while the Top 1% did worse. In econo-speak, the OECD says: "In Canada, median net wealth has increased faster than the wealth of the upper percentiles.” I've posted the key chart here which comes from this report:
    http://www.oecd.org/…/household-wealth-inequality-across-OE… "

   

Let's hear what M Trudeau has to say about this ... but I guess we will get deafening silence from the Liberals: this fact doesn't fit with their lie narrative.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Trudeau!  If only he never had to open his mouth.
He is now for proportional representation.  I am not in favour and I suspect the Liberal Party is not in favour.  It is a losers cynical stance.  It would mean perpetual minorities, perpetual elections, and a constant buying of votes.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-wants-alternative-first-past-post-next-election-080013526.html

 

[Remius]

Trudeau!  If only he never had to open his mouth.
He is now for proportional representation.  I am not in favour and I suspect the Liberal Party is not in favour.  It is a losers cynical stance.  It would mean perpetual minorities, perpetual elections, and a constant buying of votes.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-wants-alternative-first-past-post-next-election-080013526.html

Um, did you read the link you posted?  it says nothing of proportional representation.  It talks about preferential voting.  Not the same thing.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Um, did you read the link you posted?  it says nothing of proportional representation.  It talks about preferential voting.  Not the same thing.

I don't know that I am wrong - although I see proportional voting sometimes used.

Okay last try - The definitions people seem to use the term Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.  It could be argued that our current system is based on proportional representation.  There is much discussion on the internet using Proportional Representation in the same sense that I did as an alternative to First Past the Post.

 

[Underway]

@E.R.Campbell:  I think that the information you presented is essentially irrelivant to the electorate.  What defines the middle class as a economic situation and what people think they are are two different things.  Most people define themselves as middle class even if they are technically poor or technically wealthy.  Secondly people don't care about wage gaps as an actual statistic.  Do I feel like I'm doing better than last year?  Yes or no?  Then I look at who's to blame.  I could be closing the gap with rich folks by 50% a year but if I still feel like I can't pay the bills (for whatever reason) its irrelivent.

Politics are about perception, not about facts.  The perception is that rich get richer and the poor get poorer, especially in Canada.  In the US you look at your boss and want to be them, in Canada you look at your boss and hate them for their success.  Nobody cares about purchasing power or anything of the sort.

 

[Remius]

I don't know that I am wrong - although I see proportional voting sometimes used.

Okay last try - The definitions people seem to use the term Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.  It could be argued that I current system is based on proportional representation.  There is much discussion on the internet using Proportional Representation in the same sense that I did as an alternative to First Past the Post.

he's certainly open to the idea, but preferential seems to be the preference (no pun intended).

All have pros and cons.

 

[Good2Golf]

Um, did you read the link you posted?  it says nothing of proportional representation.  It talks about preferential voting.  Not the same thing.

Actually, it does...from the link:

...However, Trudeau has also said he's willing to consider proportional representation...

 

[Remius]

Actually, it does...from the link:

Caught that.  Mea culpa.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Kudos to Justin Trudeau for presenting some policies, some of which have real merit and others of which are, well, less meritorious.

Lawrence Martin, in the Globe and Mail says that, "In response to growing anxiety in the party caucus and declining polling numbers, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are revamping their campaign strategy, putting out stronger platform measures on an advanced timetable ... [and] ... The schedule for policy releases has been moved up because the party realizes that the NDP has been making big gains in convincing Canadians it is the real party of change and that this has to be reversed before it is too late ... [and] ... There’s been grumbling in the Liberal caucus over what members feel is an overcautious approach by Liberal strategists since last fall, when the party led in the opinion polls."

Edited to add:

And not to be outdone, Thoimas Mulcair gave a speech to  the Economic Club of Canada, in Toronto, and, the story says "Mulcair talked about NDP icons such as Tommy Douglas, Roy Romanow or former Manitoba premier Gary Doer — provincial leaders who balanced budgets — even as he took a shot at ex-Liberal MP Bob Rae, who racked up a massive deficit in the recession of the early 1990s as the New Democrat premier of Ontario, damaging the party's electoral fortunes in the province for years ... "The federal department of finance's own reports show that NDP governments are the best at balancing the books when in office," Mulcair said ... [but] there was one exception — but he turned out to be a Liberal."

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin (Sun News) says that this poll (from Angus Reid) is a "good" one because it is based on a 6,000+ sample size:

The Angus Reid report says, "Contrary to post-election speculation in Alberta, the stunning majority win for the NDP’s Rachel Notley in that province last month has not produced the kind of “NDP bump” large enough to explain the federal party’s current standings.

Indeed – the historic win has had an impact in that province in terms of federal support: where just one-in-ten Albertans (likely voters) said they’d vote NDP six months ago (12%), twice as many (25%) say the same today. Impressive, but not a real threat to the CPC, which still claims the vast majority (56%) of the decided likely vote in Alberta.

More significantly, it is the NDP’s lead in Quebec (48%) and BC (38%) – and its growing competitiveness in Ontario (34%) that is telling.

The New Democrats today command half (48%) of the decided, likely vote in Quebec, leading by a margin of three-to-one over the Conservatives (16%) Liberals (17%) and the Bloc Quebecois (17%). This also illustrates the Liberal collapse in la belle province: the LPC had the support of 30 per cent of decided Quebeckers heading into 2015.

The NDP leads eight points over the CPC (30%) in British Columbia, and are 15 points ahead of the LPC (23%) in that province. In Ontario, the Liberals – who had had the backing of 34 per cent of likely voters six months ago – have dropped nine points (25%). Advantage NDP – which has picked up that support (34%), and sits in a statistical tie with the CPC (36%), which sees its fortunes in Canada’s most populous province slipping slightly."


Four months away from the general election I call the CPC and NDP as, effectively, tied for first, with the Liberals falling farther and farther behind in third place.

 

[Infanteer]

So the big (and probably deciding) question is, with the two lead horses clearly identified where will a chunk of the Liberals votes go, to the CPC or the NDP?

 

[Edward Campbell]

So the big (and probably deciding) question is, with the two lead horses clearly identified where will a chunk of the Liberals votes go, to the CPC or the NDP?

That, I think, is the nightmare scenario for thew Liberal Party of Canada.

The fear now must be that Liberals will consider strategic voting ~ the weapon the Liberals used so effectively against the NDP over the decades ~ and the Blue Liberals, the Manley Liberals will vote for the CPC, in 2015, to prevent an NDP government while the left wing of the LPC, and there is one, will drift towards the NDP ... permanently.

The first issue, strategic voting by the Blue Liberals, is something the party can survive, under new, better leadership; the second issue, the Liberal Left permanently changing allegiance, could be fatal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I can see why the Liberals might like runoff voting.  It isn't far-fetched to imagine that 50-60% of voters would go 1/2 LPC/NDP or NDP/LPC, and the Liberals might see themselves as potentially the perennial majority partner in a "natural governing coalition".

 

[Underway]

Believe it or not this is all part of Harpers plan.  He wants to destroy the liberal party of Canada as his long term goal.  A country divided between socialists and conservatives means that the conservatives win two out of every three times.  Or at least that's his calculation.  It's been a long time coming but the chess master is closing in on his end game.  Even if that means losing the next election I think he might calculate that it's worth it.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Believe it or not this is all part of Harpers plan.  He wants to destroy the liberal party of Canada as his long term goal.  A country divided between socialists and conservatives means that the conservatives win two out of every three times.  Or at least that's his calculation.  It's been a long time coming but the chess master is closing in on his end game.  Even if that means losing the next election I think he might calculate that it's worth it.

While Harper may well have hoped that the Liberal party would die, I doubt that he:

1. Convinced them to put Stephane Dionne, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Justin Trudeau as party leaders;
2. Convinced the Liberals to continue to have no real major policy ideas that were different from the 1990s; or
3. Convinced Alberta and Quebec to vote NDP and make them a legitimate player on the national scene.

The Liberals lost the election in 2006 and have spent the past 5 years attempting to take short cuts to get back into power. Now they're paying the piper as the NDP have taken their left and the conservatives have taken their right. Ontario, who in reality were the only reason the liberals kept winning in the 90s, stopped voting 120 odd seats Liberal because the liberals grew stale in power. Since then, they've traded policy for celebrity.

Harper may be a politico, but you're giving him and the conservatives far too much credit. This is all Liberal doing.

Also- lets not forget the election is a long way off and the NDP are enjoying a bump thanks to the Alberta election results (akin to the democrats winning Texas). There is a lot of time for them to gain ground, particularly if the media start putting more pressure on the NDP, who in the past few elections, have been able to get away with running terrible candidates because there's been no scrutiny.

 

[Edward Campbell]

While Harper may well have hoped that the Liberal party would die, I doubt that he:

1. Convinced them to put Stephane Dionne, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Justin Trudeau as party leaders;    ✓ Agreed
2. Convinced the Liberals to continue to have no real major policy ideas that were different from the 1990s; or  ✓ Agreed
3. Convinced Alberta and Quebec to vote NDP and make them a legitimate player on the national scene.          ✓ Agreed

The Liberals lost the election in 2006 and have spent the past 5 years attempting to take short cuts to get back into power. Now they're paying the piper as the NDP have taken their left and the conservatives have taken their right. Ontario, who in reality were the only reason the liberals kept winning in the 90s, stopped voting 120 odd seats Liberal because the liberals grew stale in power. Since then, they've traded policy for celebrity.

Harper may be a politico, but you're giving him and the conservatives far too much credit. This is all Liberal doing.  ✓ Agreed

Also- lets not forget the election is a long way off and the NDP are enjoying a bump thanks to the Alberta election results (akin to the democrats winning Texas). There is a lot of time for them to gain ground, particularly if the media start putting more pressure on the NDP, who in the past few elections, have been able to get away with running terrible candidates because there's been no scrutiny.  ✓ Agreed

 


I think (just hope?) that the CPC is being very calm ~ think Wellington at Waterloo ~ being confident that Canadians will not start to really pay attention to the election until after Labour Day* when they, the CPC, can ramp up policy (and some, carefully targeted, spending) (re)announcements and persuade the (fairly large) Conservative friendly media contingent to look more and more closely the costs of the promises made by Messers Mulcair and Trudeau.

I still believe that the key battlegrounds are the suburban ridings around the large cities in Ontario, above all, and in BC, and AB, and in the small to medium cities across the country. Those people are largely social moderates and fiscal conservatives and the CPC has, for the past decade pandered to their values and desires. I think that the suburbanites' fear of deficits (conversely, their love for balanced budgets) will make them open to thinking, long and hard, about the costs of Liberal and NDP promises. I also suspect that the CPC is being a bit racist: they are working very, very hard to win the East Asian, South Asian and Jewish votes, even as they almost write off the Middle Eastern and Latin American votes. My guess is that they have good, solid data on voting which shows them that they are on the right track.

_____
* Just as Wellington remained confident (outwardly, at least) that Blücher would, as promised, join him as soon as possible

 

[Underway]

While Harper may well have hoped that the Liberal party would die, I doubt that he:

1. Convinced them to put Stephane Dionne, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Justin Trudeau as party leaders;
2. Convinced the Liberals to continue to have no real major policy ideas that were different from the 1990s; or
3. Convinced Alberta and Quebec to vote NDP and make them a legitimate player on the national scene.

The Liberals lost the election in 2006 and have spent the past 5 years attempting to take short cuts to get back into power. Now they're paying the piper as the NDP have taken their left and the conservatives have taken their right. Ontario, who in reality were the only reason the liberals kept winning in the 90s, stopped voting 120 odd seats Liberal because the liberals grew stale in power. Since then, they've traded policy for celebrity.

Harper may be a politico, but you're giving him and the conservatives far too much credit. This is all Liberal doing.

Also- lets not forget the election is a long way off and the NDP are enjoying a bump thanks to the Alberta election results (akin to the democrats winning Texas). There is a lot of time for them to gain ground, particularly if the media start putting more pressure on the NDP, who in the past few elections, have been able to get away with running terrible candidates because there's been no scrutiny.

But he did change elections funding, undercut the liberal power bases in immigrant communities and the middle class, took advantage of liberal blunders and internal party factions, crippled the Bloc by exposing their hypocrisy which allowed the NDP space.  He's very shrewd and clever.  He knows the liberals better than they know themselves.  In retrospect it's obvious that the liberals would turn too celebrity.  They still dream about the original Trudeau days.  Dion was a surprise but no plan survives contact with the enemy.