Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Edmonton Sun is an interesting bit of speculation from David Akin ~ but all should be be cautious of Jeffrey Simpson's admonition, just above, about dreaming in technicolor in the summertime:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/07/04/the-easy-ride-in-the-west-may-be-over-for-harpers-team

The easy ride in the West may be over for Harper's team

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JULY 04, 2015

OTTAWA - The morning after Rachel Notley and her happy NDP warriors had vanquished Jim Prentice and the Alberta PCs, Prentice’s former colleagues in Ottawa gathered in a Parliament Hill committee room for their weekly caucus meeting.

Conservative MPs were in a glum mood. Some tried, with not much success, to joke about “Albertastan.”

Deepak Obhrai, the MP for Calgary East since 2003, emerged from the closed-door meeting to tell reporters, “I’ve run six elections already. I did not have an NDP challenge. Now I expect an NDP challenge. The NDP has become a player indeed.”

This weekend, as the Greatest Outdoor Show On Earth got underway, the leaders of all three major parties were in Calgary, ready to enjoy the sights and sounds of the Stampede but also keenly aware that with fewer than 120 days until the next general election, the Conservative stranglehold in Western Canada may be weakening.

Now no one is predicting that the West is about to be swamped by an Orange Wave — or, for that matter, a Red Tide. This is still solid blue territory.

The vast stretch of Canada from southeastern Manitoba to British Columbia’s most northwestern corner was represented in the last House of Commons by 92 ridings, 70 of which were held by Conservatives.

The next House of Commons will be bigger, largely because of explosive population growth in Alberta and B.C. New ridings in Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver will swell the West’s share of an enlarged 338-seat House of Commons to 104 seats.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives should be confident of winning most of those.

But Harper’s 2011 majority win was built not by simply winning western seats, it was built on being absolutely dominant west of Ontario.

Because of Conservative weakness east of Ontario, in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, Harper’s party risks losing government, let alone its majority, if it cannot repeat its dominant performance in Western Canada.

And right now, as Obhrai rightly surmised, the NDP is threatening that dominance.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair was in Calgary and that smile on his face was not just because his wife, children and grandkids were with him as he took in the Stampede’s “superdog” show or the miniature donkey showcase.

No, Mulcair is smiling because he knows there’s a good chance his party could win a majority of seats in British Columbia, win perhaps five and maybe even seven in Alberta — the NDP is looking at you, Lethbridge! — and break out of a decade-old shutout in Saskatchewan.

Pair that with a defence of its Quebec stronghold and a decent showing in Ontario, and Mulcair will be flipping pancakes at next year’s Stampede as the country’s first NDP prime minister.

As for the Liberals, it is still a party in rebuilding mode after three general election disasters in a row. Justin Trudeau can rightly point to improved fundraising numbers and swelling memberships.

But when the House of Commons broke for the summer, there were just two members of his caucus from anywhere between Markham, Ont., and BC Place in downtown Vancouver. That would be Kevin Lamoureux in Winnipeg North and Ralph Goodale’s lonely Liberal outpost in southeast Regina.

The Liberals have been shut out of Alberta since Anne McLellan last won a seat in Edmonton in 2004.

But they are hopeful of at least planting a flag in three Calgary ridings: the downtown duo of Calgary Confederation and Calgary Centre as well as Calgary Skyview, in the city’s northeast corner. Trudeau touched down in all three ridings over the weekend.

And though all three of those new-for-2015 seats would have elected a Conservative had they existed in 2011, the main obstacle to Liberal victory is not Harper, but Mulcair.

Though the NDP are unlikely to win anywhere in Calgary, they are sapping enough of the anyone-but-Harper progressive vote that, for example, Conservative Len Webber could win in Calgary Confederation with 20,000 votes while Liberal and NDP candidates evenly split 30,000 votes.

In Calgary, Trudeau and his team must get the anti-Harper vote to line up behind his candidates just as, in Edmonton, Mulcair and his team are moving anti-Harper votes to their column.

As for Harper and the Conservatives: They will not make the mistakes Prentice made such as campaigning on a tax hike. But the question remains: After more than a decade of dominance in the West, do Conservatives there remember what it takes to win the close ones? Because, believe me, this one will be close.

So, if David Akin's reports of the summer dreams of the NDP and Liberals come true, Alberta could split as follows:

          CPC:    24, but I guess a more likely result is  30 (28 to 32)
          Liberal:  3, but I guess a more likely result is    1  ( 0  to  2)
          NDP:      7, but I guess a more likely result is    3  ( 1  to  5)

 

[Kirkhill]

In Alberta things break this way:

Liberals - Professors
NDP - Bureaucrats
Conservatives - Albertans

;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun, is from David Akin, again, and this time he suggests that Prime Minister Harper and the CPC may be going "back to the future" to exploit Canadians' fears of a worsening fiscal situation:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/04/economic-uncertainty-could-help-harper

Economic uncertainty could help Harper

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, JULY 05, 2015

OTTAWA - Canada’s economy is clearly wilting.

But are things so soft that a change of government — and a change in the country’s fiscal policies — are required?

That, of course, is the central question voters and politicians will grapple with over the next several weeks.

Last week, Statistics Canada said Canada’s economy got smaller for the fourth month in a row. The shrinkage in April was not, on its own, something to get alarmed about — the economy contracted by 0.1% compared to March — but smaller is smaller, and the trendline is not good.

An economist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Emanuella Enenajor, plugged the latest StatsCan data into her spreadsheet and pronounced that Canada was already in a recession.

That headline was quickly seized on by every single one of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s political opponents. Aha! See? What Harper’s doing is all wrong! We’re in a recession!

And yet, so long as things don’t get too bad, many Conservatives believe a little economic uncertainty may actually help their cause. As they did with more than a little success in the past two elections, Conservatives will pitch their steady hand against the risks of a new economic steward.

Indeed, we heard an echo of stump speeches Harper used in the 2011 election campaign in his Canada Day speech last week on Parliament Hill.

“In times of never-ending economic and political turmoil in the world, our Canada is an island of stability,” Harper said.

Stability, of course, means that things don’t get too hot and they don’t get too cold. And though economists may argue about whether our economy is in recession, I bet all would agree that we’re neither shrinking very quickly or growing very rapidly.

Enenajor at the Bank of America cited low and perhaps lower oil prices as a chief factor that will bring down Canada’s overall gross domestic product numbers.

But others, including Douglas Porter, chief economist at BMO Capital Markets, believes that, if you look at some other data and consider sharp regional fluctuations in economic activity, the glass may, in fact, be half-full.

“A recession is a sustained, broad-based decline in economic activity. Canada simply does not meet that test,” Porter wrote Friday. “Auto and home sales are strong, homebuilding is solid, and the weakness in output is heavily concentrated by industry (resources) and region (Alberta and Saskatchewan).”

Porter noted that the unemployment rate is a relatively healthy 6.8%. (We will get the latest jobs data this Friday.)

“The bigger employment picture in Canada is consistent with a sluggish economy, not one in recession.”

These are all points that the incumbent Harper government can seize on.

“We're not in a recession. We don't believe we will be in a recession,” Finance Minister Joe Oliver told reporters Friday. “We expect solid growth for the year, following a weak first quarter.”

Of course, we will not have the data on the second quarter until early September — just as the election campaign heats up ahead of the Oct. 19 vote. If that data shows continuing shrinkage, then Oliver and company will have some serious explaining to do to voters.

Until then, expect Oliver, Harper and any Conservative you meet on the barbeque circuit to warn that this “island of stability” could be swamped if New Democrats or Liberals are put in charge.

I remain committed to the notion that voters (not just Canadian voters) are more easily motivated by either or both of being against something or afraid of something than they are to be motivated by being for something or someone.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In Alberta things break this way:

Liberals - Professors
NDP - Bureaucrats
Conservatives - Albertans

;D

If you are Ipsos Reid pollster Darrell Bricker and Globe and Mail journalist John Ibbitson, then that definition is pretty accurate. They posit, in The Big Shift that those "professors" and "bureaucrats" represent the Laurentian elites who cling to what Bricker and Ibbitson call the Laurentian consensus about how Canada should "be" and who should lead it to that (always elusive) "promised land." They contend that the Laurentian consensus has run  out of steam and the "Albertans," that is the "rest of us" are coalescing around a different political narrative: one that is more closely aligned with what the CPC is "selling."

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the Globe and Mail, Adam Radwanski reports that Thomas Mulcair is facing "the start of an open season on the NDP Leader that’s expected to continue into the fall, if his party remains high in the polls ... Despite the NDP’s apparent momentum, Mr. Mulcair remains a little-known entity to many voters. His rivals will attempt to define him before he gets a chance to fully define himself."

Mr Radwanski lists several attributes we should consider:

    1. "He’s an old-school Quebec politician

          Much of the NDP’s appeal is predicated on being the most credible change agent, partly because it’s never been in power. But if his federal party doesn’t have much baggage, opponents might try to find some in Mr. Mulcair’s 13 years in Quebec’s National Assembly."

    2. "He’s a threat to national unity

          Justin Trudeau has already sharply criticized Mr. Mulcair’s (recently reiterated) support for the Sherbrooke Declaration – an NDP policy that, among other things, calls for Quebec to be allowed to separate with a “50 per cent plus one” referendum vote,
          rather than the “clear majority” required by the Clarity Act.

    3. "He won’t stand up enough for Quebec

          It’s an unlikely coincidence that Mr. Mulcair’s recent Sherbrooke Declaration talk followed Gilles Duceppe’s return to the Bloc Québécois helm. With little time to breathe life back into his party, Mr. Duceppe will do everything he can to persuade nationalist
          voters who helped elect 59 Quebec NDP MPs in 2011 that their interests aren’t being represented.

    4. "He’s a left-wing risk

          The least surprising attack on any NDP leader is that he or she would raise taxes and jeopardize the economy.

    5. "He’s a phoney

          At the least, Mr. Mulcair’s opponents will try to poke holes in his smiley new demeanour by drawing attention to his previous reputation for being a mercurial loner. And even as the Conservatives try to paint him as too left wing, other parties might
          also try to sow doubts about whether he actually aligns with the values of the party he leads.

          Mr. Mulcair was, after all, a minister in a centre-right provincial government. Although he left that government over a dispute about environmental policy, he did not necessarily have a reputation for being a left-wing force within it.

It is that last point, indeed, the last paragraph, that William Johnson looked at, nearly four years ago, in an article, which is reproduced, below, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

The real Thomas Mulcair

WILLIAM JOHNSON
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Oct. 17, 2011

You want to know the real Thomas Mulcair? Easy. Just take the NDP leadership candidate at his word. The man from Quebec has painted a picture of himself over the years that does not lie. But has he painted himself into a corner of the country?

On June 27, 2007, Mr. Mulcair, then a Liberal MNA, was interviewed online by Kady O’Malley for Maclean’s. The self-description he offered is interesting now as the government plans cuts in the public service. “Above and beyond anything else, I’m a public administrator and a manager. I chaired Quebec’s largest regulatory agency and reduced staff there and brought in management schemes to make things more effective. … When I was minister of the environment, I reduced by 15 per cent the budget of the ministry.”

Another statement would be prophetic four years later: “The group that’s the most nervous about us right now is the Bloc, because we have a lot of the same values.”

Jack Layton and Mr. Mulcair worked together to supplant the Bloc Québécois by appropriating most of its policies. They recognized Quebec’s unconditional right to secede on a bare majority vote, they opposed equal rights for English in Quebec, and they opposed the Supreme Court of Canada’s recognition of a right to English public schooling after sufficient years of English private schooling.

Interviewed by Alex Castonguay in L’Actualité on May 19, Mr. Mulcair revealed that, in the 1980s, he demanded that Quebec not permit English on road signs: “He insisted that signs along the highways should be in French only, even in the West Island. ‘The metropolis must maintain its French face everywhere, that’s very important,’ he said.”

As an MP, he urged restrictions on English in Quebec. On Oct. 6, 2009, he introduced a private member’s bill, Act to Amend the Canada Labour Code (French language), that would repudiate the application of the Official Languages Act in Quebec and enforce the predominance of French in all institutions under federal jurisdiction.

Last Oct. 21, he moved a motion for the federal government to cease all spending in Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction and to turn over tax points, instead. He called it “co-operative and asymmetrical federalism.”

Mr. Mulcair proclaims the nationalist version of history: Pierre Trudeau broke his promise for “change” if Quebeckers voted No in the 1980 referendum. He repeated this in his declaration on Thursday when he officially threw his hat into the NDP ring. So patriating the Constitution meant betraying Quebeckers.

On April 20, 2010, Mr. Mulcair backed a Bloc motion whereby Quebec would retain 25 per cent of all House of Commons seats in perpetuity. Otherwise, Quebec’s representation would fall proportionately with its population. “This situation must be corrected, while maintaining the democratic weight of the only province with a francophone majority and the only province whose people have been recognized by this Parliament as forming a nation within Canada.”

What about the first nations, recognized in Parliament and the Constitution? Mr. Mulcair went on to portray the Liberals as enemies of Quebec for opposing the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. “This attitude on the part of the Trudeau Liberals is very easy to understand. In their view, Canada consists of equal provinces. There are no distinctions, nor any recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, as proposed in the Meech Lake agreement, nor any attempt to keep Quebec’s democratic weight at 25 per cent, as proposed in the Charlottetown accord.”

In fact, though Mr. Trudeau opposed them, the John Turner Liberals and the Jean Chrétien Liberals eventually supported the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

“According to the Trudeau vision of Canada, the best way for the Liberal Party to stay in power was to constantly kick Quebeckers in the shins, wait for them to react, and then go to the rest of Canada and say, ‘Look what whiners they are and how hard to get along with. Lucky that Trudeau and his gang are there to keep them under control.’ That was the Liberal way that worked so well in Canada for decades on end.”

On his website, you find, in French, the Sept. 28 statement that Mr. Mulcair made in the Commons: “Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision on patriating the Constitution. …Yet, Quebeckers, now recognized as a nation, are the only Canadians to have had this Constitution forced on them against their will.”

Mr. Mulcair is confusing two decisions of the Supreme Court. Sept. 28 was the 30th anniversary of the court’s decision on Mr. Trudeau’s original intention of patriating the Constitution with support from Ontario and New Brunswick. The court ruled that was legal, but to be legitimate in a conventional sense required a consensus of the provinces.

So Mr. Trudeau convened the first ministers and won the support of nine premiers. And the Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 6, 1982: “The Constitution Act, 1982 is now in force. Its legality is neither challenged nor assailable.”

A CROP opinion poll published last Thursday indicated that 80 per cent of Quebeckers believe the patriation of the Constitution was a good thing. But Mr. Mulcair prefers reading history through the eyes of the Bloc Québécois.

William Johnson is an author and former president of Alliance Quebec.

One of the (several) things about which I think M Mulcair was right was/is this:

Quote attributed to Thomas Mulcair:

“According to the Trudeau vision of Canada, the best way for the Liberal Party to stay in power was to constantly kick Quebeckers in the shins, wait for them to react, and then go to the rest of Canada and say, ‘Look what whiners they are and how hard to get along with. Lucky that Trudeau and his gang are there to keep them under control.’ That was the Liberal way that worked so well in Canada for decades on end.”

It echoes what I have often said, albeit in reference to Ontario and which I believe drove national 'policy' for both Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien: Ontario expects the national government to "keep Quebec in its place" which is within Confederation and in second place to Ontario.

 

[Kilo_302]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun, is from David Akin, again, and this time he suggests that Prime Minister Harper and the CPC may be going "back to the future" to exploit Canadians' fears of a worsening fiscal situation:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/04/economic-uncertainty-could-help-harper

I remain committed to the notion that voters (not just Canadian voters) are more easily motivated by either or both of being against something or afraid of something than they are to be motivated by being for something or someone.

Very true, but WHY is it worsening?

[/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/i...putting-canada-in-recession-1.3138914url]

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that from a campaign tactics (as opposed to a fiscal policy) point of view the question of "why" is irrelevant. The point is:

    1. Is there a broad, general perception (right or wrong also doesn't matter) that that the economy is worsening?

    2. If "Yes," which party can exploit that to its electoral advantage? and

    3. If "No," then which party can exploit that?

The narrative in the "Yes" case also has to ask: "who is to blame?" That might get a little closer to asking "why?" but it's still not the real question ... for a campaign tactician.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Anyway, about things that really matter ... the Globe and Mail reports that, "Canada’s protected dairy and poultry industries are in the crosshairs of the United States and other farm export powers as momentum builds toward a massive Pacific Rim trade deal ... Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are expected to resume shortly, with a deal possible as early as August."

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, John Ibbitson explains that Prime Minister Harper appears poised to display real, strategic, national leadership, despite the fact that it will hurt his partisan, political interests:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-poised-to-sign-pacific-rim-trade-deal-putting-safe-rural-ridings-in-play/article25100149/

Those who follow my ramblings here will know that I have only a few, quite clear and simple, political beliefs: in the absolute sanctity of a few quite fundamental rights (which puts me at odds with the Conservative Party), in an active, responsible foreign policy, and in sound economic management. It is my firm belief, based on what I regard as a careful reading of history, that free(er) trade always works to provide the greatest good to the greatest number.*

I am convinced that the TPP is a good deal, in the mid to long term for Canada. Of course there will be disruptions ~ and, yes, the dairy farmers will be victims: some, especially small to mid sized "family farm" producers (like the fellow in the TV ad) will be unable to withstand the competition from some of the giant, hyper-efficient, American producers. But that's part of the eternal process of creative destruction and we cannot shield ourselves from it.

So, if John Ibbitson is right: good on Prime Minister Harper for being a real leader.

_____
* You can look at Angus Maddison's "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective," published by the OECD in 2001, and draw your own conclusions.

Edited to add:

See some excellent, current data, from The Economist newspaper

An interesting analysis of the statist nonsense, supported [only by the terminally f'ing stupid in our society, that is supply management, is in this article which is reproduced under the Fasir Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/watson-time-to-stop-milking-consumers

Time to stop milking consumers

WILLIAM WATSON

Published on: July 6, 2015

Scrolling through some data the other day — it’s the sort of thing we economists do — I ran across a number that struck me. It was on the website of the Canadian Dairy Information Centre, in their historical statistics section. In 2013, the latest year listed, Canada produced 78.2 million hectolitres of milk.

Partly that struck me because I had no idea what a hectolitre is. But Wikipedia tells me it’s 100 litres. So if you think of 25 4-litre packages of milk, roughly a shallow bathtub-full, Canada produced 78.2 million of those. Adapting a calculation from the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, it’s enough to fill Toronto’s Rogers Centre six times over, though I suppose that would hamper the Blue Jays’ running game. I don’t know how they calculated the volume of the Rogers Centre. Maybe that time they filled it with beer. Whether they’re counting the luxury boxes and washrooms, they don’t say.

Anyway, 78.2 million hectolitres wasn’t actually the number that struck me. The number that struck me was 78.8 million hectolitres. That’s how much milk we produced in 1967, 48 years ago. That was shortly after our all-time high milk production of 80.8 hectolitres, which occurred in 1964. That’s right. We were producing more milk in the 1960s than we are now, even though in 1967 our population was only 20.4 million, compared to 35.7 million now. Population has almost doubled. Milk production is the same.

Are there any other industries where production is less than in 1964? Formica tabletops, maybe. Cat’s-eyes sunglasses. Unfiltered cigarettes. Suede shoes. Not much else.

Now, until 1975 total production included milk consumed at the farm, so that inflates the 1960s numbers a bit. On the other hand, until 1997 the data didn’t include Newfoundland — even though the non-dairy parts of Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949. So that deflates the 1960s numbers a bit. But neither change makes a big difference.

And it really isn’t so surprising that milk production hasn’t grown. That’s how the industry wants it. Since the early 1970s we have had supply management in dairy, which is a euphemism for supply restriction. It is illegal in Canada to produce more milk than the various dairy commissions and boards allow.

If you’re producing a good, you obviously prefer that its overall supply not grow quickly. That way prices stay high — so long as you can keep your competitors out, and the federal government obliges this desire with 200+ per cent tariffs. Most people would regard taxing a thing at 100 hundred per cent excessive. In dairy, they’re not happy unless foreigners are taxed 200 per cent. Our tariff on ice cream is 277 per cent.

But consumers being milked this way can’t go on much longer. Congress has just given President Barack Obama “fast-track” authority to negotiate a Pacific Rim free trade deal. He’s a lame duck, but no electable Republican or Democratic successor will oppose it.

Nor is it possible to imagine Canada staying out. If our opposition parties run against it, as the NDP is ideologically inclined to do, that undermines their argument that, internationally, the prime minister doesn’t play well with others.

But other Pacific countries — especially Australia and New Zealand, which faced up to liberalizing their agriculture in the 1980s and 1990s — have made clear we’re not getting in unless supply management goes.

Who in Canadian politics will bell the supply management cat? The Tories have had 10 years and, despite Mr. Harper’s reputation for ruthlessness, haven’t taken it on. If only Nixon could go to China, maybe only the NDP can bring market reforms to this corner of our agriculture. But that does seem unlikely.

The Liberals say they “want to do politics differently.” Their ex-MP, Martha Hall Findlay, has proposed we phase out supply management and compensate farmers who, in good faith, bought expensive permits — “quota” — to get into the industry. How about their leader? Will he put his policy where his slogan is?

William Watson teaches economics at McGill University.

As to Prof Watson's final question: as far as I can tell (I may be very wrong) M Trudeau (who, again as far as I know is indifferent to economics) is advised (led around by the nose, if you prefer) by a team that used to advise Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne ~ they are not people who believe in free(er) trade, in fact (still as far as I can tell) they are, mostly, protectionists, fools, therefore, of the worst kind.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Very true, but WHY is it worsening?

[/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/i...arge and they do things differently....  ::)

 

[Underway]

Well, since the NDP (your apparent dream team) are now running Alberta, things should just be sprouting up (wild) roses there, economically speaking.

What? They are the worst performing economy in Canada this year? Can't be true... The NDP are in charge and they do things differently....  :

Yes the NDP have just gotten in but let's blame Albertas structural deficit and tanking oil prices on them  :facepalm:.  Alberta has bigger problems than the NDP, they start with over reliance on a single resource and go from there.  It's gonna hurt in Alberta for a long time and no party is going to be able to make it better without some tough choices. 

Given that eliminating marketing boards will lose votes in Alberta for the Tories I wonder if that will open enough space for the NDP to gain some seats in rural Alberta federally.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I was mostly being sarcastic.

However, it will be instructive to watch the next 4 years as everything that goes wrong will still be the fault of the Alberta PCs...

 

[jollyjacktar]

:goodpost:

 

[Edward Campbell]

In a column in the Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin pretends to argue that the NDP are seeking a 'Bay Street' type to be Finance Minister in the event they form a government. I'm sure the NDP would like to get a financial heavyweight as a candidate, but, in my opinion, the party already has a few candidates with adequate economic credentials ~ of course they're from the political left, they're Dippers, after all.

So, what is Lawrence Martin's point?

The column is, simply, a "free" advertisement for the Liberal Party of Canada: it points out that they do have some strong, credible "front benchers" ready to serve finance ministers in waiting. Expect more of this from Mr Martin and, indeed, from Jeffrey Simpson, in the Good Grey Globe, almost everyone in the Toronto Star and a few others in other media outlets. And you can expect counter fire from right wing journalists in equally as many media chains.

My point is: the media is not unbiased ~ even the best journalists bring a strong "point of view" to the stories they write ~ maybe that's part of what makes them the best. All the "news' you see (most people get most of their information from TV), hear and read (only a few of us read newspapers, fewer still read several) ~ about politics, about economics, about social issues, about wars and national security ... about everything ~ will be filtered through the eyes, ears, minds and, therefore, built in biases of the journalist and his/her editors. Caveat lector.

 

[Underway]

I was mostly being sarcastic.

However, it will be instructive to watch the next 4 years as everything that goes wrong will still be the fault of the Alberta PCs...

Fair enough, however that tactic worked  for Cretiens and Daltons first terms!

 

[dimsum]

All the "news' you see (most people get most of their information from TV), hear and read (only a few of us read newspapers, fewer still read several) ~ about politics, about economics, about social issues, about wars and national security ... about everything ~ will be filtered through the eyes, ears, minds and, therefore, built in biases of the journalist and his/her editors. Caveat lector.

Agreed.  But, try as I want to, I can't get through most of The Star's or The Sun's political/social issues articles without wanting to force my palm through my face.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Yes the NDP have just gotten in but let's blame Alberta's structural deficit and tanking oil prices on them

True, the drop in oil prices happened before the election and the PC's had screwed the pooch, which peeved off a lot of the electorate.

Alberta has bigger problems than the NDP, they start with over reliance on a single resource and go from there.

True, the energy sector encompasses a large section of Alberta's GDP, but its not as big as some people think. For example, in 1985 the energy sector made up 36% of the provinces GDP; in 2013 it was only 24.6%.  And I'm guessing that 24% also includes hydro-electric and renewable energy so the actual gas/oil percentage is actually a few points smaller. Yes, a significant percentage, but hardly a single resource.

It's gonna hurt in Alberta for a long time and no party is going to be able to make it better without some tough choices.

True, and the NDP is making some tough choices, but are they the right ones?

Given that eliminating marketing boards will lose votes in Alberta for the Tories I wonder if that will open enough space for the NDP to gain some seats in rural Alberta federally.

Well first off, apart from some rumors, there are no indications that that the Conservatives are going to eliminate farm marketing boards. If they do decide, various studies have shown the actual loss in votes (country wide) is pretty insignificant, especially if the Conservatives can show that the average consumer can save money.

The other thing is that NDP support in Alberta may be pretty thin. A poll (ABACUS ?) after the election showed that the majority of people who voted NDP, voted because they were peeved off at the PCs, not because they were NDP supporters.

Finally, if the federal NDP do pick-up seats in Alberta, it will in the urban areas, not rural.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given that eliminating marketing boards will lose votes in Alberta for the Tories I wonder if that will open enough space for the NDP to gain some seats in rural Alberta federally.

Rather unlikely.  Alberta farmers led the charge to eliminate the Wheat Board and be able to raise and sell their own crops. Also, they and other Western dairy farmers, have regularly been "shorted" quota to feed the Quebec and Ontario Co-Ops. 

(The Dairy Industry in Canada is now all owned by 5000 Quebec farmers (Agropur), the Saputo family of Montreal (Saputo) and an Italian multinational (Parmalat) Agropur's membership more and more consists of Milk Quota holders and traders and less and less of active farmers).

The Co-Op issue is one for rural Quebec and Ontario - and in Quebec it really only affects the CPC around the region of Beauce and Lotbiniere.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

If, and it's a Big IF, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is correct, then Prime Minister's Harper's (reputed) strategy of reshaping Canadian politics into a UK style two party system, with a centre-right Conservative Party and a left of centre NDP, is working, and the Liberals are being squeezed out (see Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-viewed-as-clearest-alternative-to-conservatives-poll-shows/article25348097/

NDP viewed as clearest alternative to Conservatives, poll shows

DANIEL LEBLANC
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Jul. 08, 2015

The NDP is seen as the party that offers the best-defined alternative to the Conservative government before an election in which Canadians will be asked to choose between political stability and renewal, a Globe and Mail/Nanos Research poll has found.

Fifty-two per cent of respondents said the NDP “represents the clearest change from the current Stephen Harper government.” The Liberal Party was far behind at 19 per cent, with the Green Party at 10 per cent.

Change – and who can best deliver it – will be an essential issue in the Oct. 19 election, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper countering that voters should opt for stability.

Both the New Democrats and the Liberal Party are positioning themselves as agents of change after 10 years of Conservative rule, but the findings suggest the Liberals have failed to differentiate themselves clearly from the Harper government to this point.

The poll also shows the NDP is nearly tied with the Liberal Party on economic issues. Asked to name the opposition party that they “trust most on matters related to the Canadian economy,” 30 per cent of respondents named the Liberal Party, and 27 per cent opted for the NDP. (Thirty per cent said none of the opposition parties had earned their trust on economic issues.)

Confirming that Canada is headed for a three-way contest, the poll found a tight race to be the party with the “most appealing” policy platform. The NDP came in first at 28 per cent, followed by the Conservatives at 27 per cent and the Liberals at 25 per cent.

Pollster Nik Nanos said the NDP has staked out the clearest policy positions in opposition to the Conservative Party, while the Liberals have a more nuanced approach.

“The NDP and Tom Mulcair have been able to fashion themselves as the party of clear change,” Mr. Nanos said in an interview. “For Canadians who are not happy with the current government, it looks like they have a clear sense the New Democrats are the ones who will be the most different.”

Mr. Harper lumped the NDP and the Liberal Party together in a weekend speech at the Calgary Stampede, stating voters will face a stark choice.

“We’ve come too far to take risks with reckless policies. That’s why I’m confident that, this October, Canadians will choose security over risk,” the Conservative Leader said.

The NDP and the Liberal Party are clearly working the same terrain. Mr. Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau spent Canada Day in the Greater Toronto Area, then went to the Calgary Stampede, and spoke one after the other to the Assembly of First Nations in Montreal on Tuesday.

The NDP has been working hard to reassure Canadians its economic policies would be largely in line with those of the current government. The biggest change proposed by the NDP is to increase corporate taxes, although party officials said the planned rate, to be revealed in coming months, would be “reasonable.”

Party officials said the NDP is looking for candidates with an economic background who could serve as ministers of finance or industry. The recent upswing in the polls could make that easier.

The Liberals went through a tough period in the fall and winter as Mr. Trudeau stumbled on the combat mission in Iraq and struggled to find the right balance on the anti-terrorism legislation. In a bid to gather momentum, Mr. Trudeau has recently unveiled a proposal for an enhanced child benefit, plans for a more open government and a new environmental platform. The Liberals are also banking on a promise to increase personal income tax for Canadians making more than $200,000 a year and bring down the rate for middle-income earners.

While both parties want to replace the Conservatives, their partisans have been at one another’s throats. Last week, the Liberals suggested Mr. Mulcair’s flirtation with the Conservatives in 2007 undermined the NDP’s promises to clean up the environment.

The NDP responded by parroting lines from the Liberals and Mr. Trudeau, taking to social media to call on Canadians to “replace the politics of fear and division with hope and optimism.”

The Nanos poll was a hybrid telephone and online survey of 1,000 Canadians, carried out from June 27 to 29, providing an accuracy rate of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

My opinion remains that Canadians, generally, don't vote FOR something or someone, they vote for change, to "throw the rascals out." If that's true then the article's contention that "Change – and who can best deliver it – will be an essential issue in the Oct. 19 election," is very germane and, at the moment, the preferred agent of change appears to be Thomas Mulcair and the NDP.

 

[jollyjacktar]

And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.

 

[Remius]

And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.

I'm starting to get that impression as well.