Election 2015

[a_majoor]

Looking at the bell curve simply provides hard evidence to what I (and many people)already know intuitively about alternative voting programs like PR, ranked ballots and other proposals: the vote wold splinter and fragment into a multitude of very narrow parities rather than allowing a consensus to grow or a majority to set a path (much less a long term program).

The fragmented vote on the Left will become even more fragmented, since instead of having "LPC, NDP and Green" as your choices nationally (The BQ is irrelevant outside of Quebec, but illustrates the point better inside the province), we can now throw in even more parties which cater to various issues of "identity" politics, or take class warfare to "11" (think of the savage battles for votes between the Trotskyities and the Marxists, with the Maoists running up the middle!). The Right wing vote will also be split between a centrist CPC, and increasingly harder positions taken by "Reform/Wildrose" like parties, Social conservatives and Libertarians.

Like Israel and Italy, there will be a toxic stew of back room bargaining and secret deals to gather enough "sort of" like minded people together to form a ruling coalition, and no voter will ever be able to fully understand who exactly is in charge or accountable for anything. I suspect the LPC made the pledge to end FPTP without even stopping for a second to consider that they would never be a majority in these circumstances, but perhaps thought their "transitive" skills would allow them to build coalitions. Given the amazing amount of power even very minor and extreme parties can have in these coalition building exercises ("You want that last seat to get a majority? These are the concessions *we* want in return..."), the Liberals will reduce themselves to irrelevance even faster than they are doing now.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I have never believed patronage has not continued since 1984.  I believe it can no longer be practiced as openly and assuredly as the LPC was accustomed to in order to grease their system of recruitment and development of functionaries and candidates, and that has weakened the LPC.

Harper looked at ways to reform the Senate.  Yes, he would have to "lead", but not in the literal meaning of the word.  What that means in practice is that he would have to find gifts outside the framework of the reform to give to everyone with the power to say "No", because nothing inherent in Senate reform has popped up that has moved enough stakeholders to desire reform for its own sake.  It is not like constitutional reform in which the changes to the constitutional framework itself provide the payoffs.  There is nothing he wants to trade away to reform Senate.  It actually has nothing to do with "leadership".  This is a failing of the provincial governments which will not do the right thing in itself, not the federal government. 

The NDP can call out no-one on this matter since their choice is impractical and asinine.  What is missing is a well-deserved media scolding for such a pointless promise.

The fact that an apparent 60/40 progressive/conservative vote split exists does not mean the 60 would be unified in its desire to govern as a coalition.  It is entirely possible that the Red slice of 60 would choose more often to work with the 40, constituting a majority.

 

[Underway]

I think that Canadians, broadly, fit under a bell curve in their politics ...

         

              ... I suspect that the largest number of us (38.2%, at a guess) are smack-dab in the middle and there is, really, no difference in opinion between the 19.1% just to the left of the centre line
                    and the 19.1% just to the right of it. I also believe that the 15% who are centre left are not too far away from the 15% who are centre right. So, almost 70% of us are centrist ~ firmly in
                    the "mushy middle" on almost every issue.

                  That means, in my guesstimation, that only 15% of us are firmly on the right and, equally only 15% of us are firmly on the left. (That's why I keep saying the CPC has a 20% base ~ the 15%
                  on the real right have nowhere else to go and some (many, even most) of those in the right of centre segment are not inclined to lean left. That's also why I believe the NDP has a firm lock on 15% of the vote and why the Liberals,
                  if they still are a real "big tent" transactive (another way of saying unprincipled) party have access to their own, firm 20% or even more.)

                  That centrist reality is why, in my opinion, Prime Minister Harper's long range strategic goal is to replicate the UK's two party system in Canada: with the Liberals gone the whole of the centre, the 70%,
                  is "up for grabs" and it will, as often as not, be "grabbed" by the conservative party ~ more often IF the prime minister can, as some pundits say he is doing, change the political culture in Canada by making us all
                  slightly more conservative in our values and expectations.

This is exactly what I was saying.  The LPC and the NDP are fundamentally different.  One is capitalist the other socialist.  IF the LPC were to collapse many, many liberal supporters would go to the CPC, which most likely would change the CPC to make it more centrist as well.  The NDP would attract those who are not overly committed to capitalism.  Think of all the LPC support in big urban centres.  No way in hell that's going to the NDP esp as you need a 6 figure job just to live there.

 

[Kirkhill]

I doubt the NDP would attract much of the Liberal ethnic vote.  As ERC often points out social conservatism is a characteristic of many newcomers.  As well many members will have joined to associate with a winning team, are generally ambitious and are often "refugees" from socialist systems.

None of that bodes well for the NDP.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I doubt the NDP would attract much of the Liberal ethnic vote.  As ERC often points out social conservatism is a characteristic of many newcomers.  As well many members will have joined to associate with a winning team, are generally ambitious and are often "refugees" from socialist systems.

None of that bodes well for the NDP.

My perception is that the CPC has, as they so often do, "sliced and diced" the ethnic vote, too. I think the CPC has focused on a handful of ethnic groups: selected for their likelihood of actually participating in electoral politics:

    1. The "Jewish vote", which is, conveniently, concentrated in a few urban and suburban areas;

    2. The Asian vote, and, very specifically, the East Asian (Chinese) and South Asian (Indian) votes, which are also concentrated in, mainly, suburban areas ~ especially around Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver; and

    3. The fast growing Philippine-Canadian vote. This may seem a bit counter-intuitive, given the crackdown on temporary foreign workers, many of whom are Filipinos, but my sense is that the policy actually appeals to Canadians of
        Philippines ethnicity who, unlike temporary foreign workers, actually can (and do) vote and who are willing, themselves to fill many of those jobs, albeit at slightly higher wages than TFWs earned.

        (That means that I suspect that the Conservatives have, more or less, written off the Afro-Arab/Muslim vote sand the Afro-Caribbean vote, too. But, my guess is that neither of those groups go to the polls in very great numbers.)

The Conservatives have managed to differentiate the social-conservatism of the immigrant, especially the Asian immigrant, from more established North American social conservatism, and the CPC appeals to the new Canadian who, for example, is, very often, in favour of e.g. abortion rights, putting them at odds with the Christian right, and who is, equally often, agnostic on e.g. gay marriage ~ they tend to regard sexual orientation as something very private ... many Asians support equality for all, including homosexuals, but they are uncomfortable with e.g. public, in your face, and colourful Gay Pride festivals.

The CPC already had the Eastern European ethnic vote as part of the Western/rural cohort, but our military operations in Eastern Europe (and the hideous monument to victims of communism planned for Ottawa) are ways to shore up that support.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Liberal insider Scott Reid offers the opposition parties some good advice in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-the-recession-is-an-opportunity-for-the-opposition-if-they-dare

The recession is an opportunity for the opposition, if they dare

Scott Reid

Published on: July 10, 2015

The economy is going straight to hell and that’s splendid news for Stephen Harper.

It’s splendid news because it allows him to campaign under his preferred banner of steady economic manager. It’s splendid news because he’s the leader who helped steer Canada through seven straight years of global economic disruption. It’s splendid news because he’s shown his ability to withstand a worldwide financial crisis, introduce record levels of stimulus, cut taxes for the rich and, all the while, return the nation to budget balance.

And it’s splendid news because who else are Canadians going to trust when economic crisis crashes smack dab into the centre of an election campaign? That hairy fellow leading the socialists? The handsome one in charge of the Liberals? Hardly. Tough times call for tough leaders willing to take tough decisions. And tough comes happily to Stephen Harper. No mistaking that guy for a Greek.

In fact, a return to recession, just as the Conservatives are set to seek a fourth consecutive election victory, is about as splendid a stroke of luck as the prime minister could imagine. Nothing screams re-election quite as loudly as a shrinking economy.

And don’t forget, polls show a growing desire for change, a firm belief the country is headed in the wrong direction and a record low number of Canadians who would even consider voting Conservative. Sprinkle in the return of Mike Duffy’s bribery trial with who knows what fun is yet to come from Pam Wallin, Patrick Brazeau and a can-we-even-be-sure-he’s-deceased Arthur Porter and it’s practically a campaign manager’s dream come true.

Stunningly, the above description barely ranks as sarcasm. It is, with remarkably little exaggeration, the logic championed by a number of blinded-to-reality partisans and more than a few ought-to-know-better political analysts. It relies on the idea that Harper has convinced Canadians that even if things are bad, they can only become worse without him. Since it’s worked before, it is assumed that such an appeal must work again.

It will not.

The country’s slide back into recession is a calamity for the government – economically dispiriting and electorally dismal. It adds measurably to the decade-long weight this government must drag to the polls. It increases the weariness of voters. It exhausts the possibility of stirring public optimism. And it invites the suggestion that it’s finally time to try something else.

The interesting question is whether either of the Opposition leaders will actually propose something else. So far, the answer is unclear. We’ve seen differences of degree but no fundamental departures in direction. Everyone is more or less operating within the same orthodoxy of balanced budgets, infrastructure commitments and tax cuts. With word that the country is slipping back into recession, the economic debate at the heart of this campaign could now shift swiftly and significantly.

But only if the Opposition leaders force that shift.

The temptation for the Liberal and NDP campaigns will be to concentrate on blame – to tell voters that Harper is responsible for these weakening economic indicators. After years of suffering through lectures about how skilled the Conservatives are at managing our economy, the desire to scream “I told you so” must be overwhelming.

How could the government have done so little with their much-delayed budget? Why dedicate so few dollars to infrastructure? How could the Minister of Finance tighten fiscal policy just as the Bank of Canada was easing monetary policy? And where in hell are the jobs supposed to come from?

There are plenty of complaints to be lodged. But not many votes to be harvested.

Canadians have relented to the economics of globalization and liberalized capital markets. It has made them oddly forgiving of our political leaders. Harper is not blamed by voters for newfound economic distress because most voters believe the forces that brought us here are beyond the control of any lone political leader, much less the prime minister of our relatively small national economy.

For those seeking to dethrone Harper, the more fertile territory is to be found in the way forward. Who will produce a real plan for growth? And who will communicate that plan with a focus on the wellbeing of workaday regular folks, not just macroeconomic forces?

Here, Harper has proven himself to be entirely beatable. In 2008, he was so lacking in agility that even as the campaign unfolded in the midst of financial meltdown, he insisted that he could, and that he should, make fiscal balance his highest priority. Then, like today, his government pretended the recession was not real and relented only when hard realities had already put deep dents in our economy. This history reminds us that Harper’s instinct to cling to the ways of Herbert Hoover is deeply rooted.

For Mulcair and Trudeau, an important window is opening. In the competition to stand for change, presenting a plan to get Canada out of recession has just become voters’ new litmus test. We now know the debate that will define this election. It’s going to be about pulling our economy out of neutral. About putting Canada back in economic gear. About stimulating jobs and growth — even if that means a brief detour away from budget balance. Even if that depends upon a detour away from budget balance.

The leader who gets there first and who gets there best – who is able to speak for Canadians worried about their financial future, able to offer an alternative to Harper’s narrow fiscal focus, able to bring Canadians the most recognizable blueprint for growth. Able to set a goal greater than a balanced budget. That’s the leader who will be seen by voters as representing change. That’s the leader who will win.

Scott Reid is a principal at Feschuk.Reid and a CTV News political analyst. He was director of communications for former prime minister Paul Martin.

I think Mr Reid is right, I believe Canadians do trust Prime Minister Harper to manage the economy in a sensible way and I agree that they will not blame him for problems that, clearly, have their origins amongst the "big three:" China, the EU and the USA.

But, I also believe that Canadians are ready and willing to vote for change and for hope and we should all remember how well those two notions worked for President Obama in the USA. If, and it's a Big IF, the Liberals or the NDP can back away from blaming the prime minister and offer something better then I suspect they will benefit ... but I'm guessing that the opposition parties will be unable to resist going negative and they will squander the opportunity to offer Canadians hope and change and they will, instead, play into Prime Minister Harper's hands and allow him to counterstrike with fear about Liberal and NDP overspending and so on.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The problem for either Trudeau or Mulcair is to believably claim that he has a better plan.

"The Conservatives have not done as good a job as might have been done" is not equivalent to "we can do better".  The NDP and LPC could do worse.  "Harper is not optimum" and "Harper is better than Mulcair or Trudeau" can both be true at the same time.

Recapitulate some of the primary measures customarily taken during a recession: decrease taxes, increase temporary useful spending.

Do not increase taxes, do not start new entitlement programs, and do not increase the debt overhang unnecessarily with pointless spending: it limits borrowing options and the cost of servicing debt squeezes out program spending.

The NDP and LPC propose to increase their net tax take and start new spending.  Bad timing.

 

[Harrigan]

I think that Canadians, broadly, fit under a bell curve in their politics ...

         

              ... I suspect that the largest number of us (38.2%, at a guess) are smack-dab in the middle and there is, really, no difference in opinion between the 19.1% just to the left of the centre line
                    and the 19.1% just to the right of it. I also believe that the 15% who are centre left are not too far away from the 15% who are centre right. So, almost 70% of us are centrist ~ firmly in
                    the "mushy middle" on almost every issue.

                  That means, in my guesstimation, that only 15% of us are firmly on the right and, equally only 15% of us are firmly on the left. (That's why I keep saying the CPC has a 20% base ~ the 15%
                  on the real right have nowhere else to go and some (many, even most) of those in the right of centre segment are not inclined to lean left. That's also why I believe the NDP has a firm lock on 15% of the vote and why the Liberals,
                  if they still are a real "big tent" transactive (another way of saying unprincipled) party have access to their own, firm 20% or even more.)

                  That centrist reality is why, in my opinion, Prime Minister Harper's long range strategic goal is to replicate the UK's two party system in Canada: with the Liberals gone the whole of the centre, the 70%,
                  is "up for grabs" and it will, as often as not, be "grabbed" by the conservative party ~ more often IF the prime minister can, as some pundits say he is doing, change the political culture in Canada by making us all
                  slightly more conservative in our values and expectations.

I agree that it is a perfectly valid theory, but what evidence is there that Canadian voters are on a Bell Curve?  It's not in the electoral results. 

The problem with most political discourse at the moment (and I am guilty of it as well) is that we tend to see things as linear - left vs right - black or white - on a line or spectrum.  But people's political views are more 3D than that.  One can be socially progressive and fiscally conservative, or vice versa, and still vote for a multitude of parties.  Political parties want to pigeonhole people onto that one dimensional axis of left vs right because they want to profess ownership of a certain segment of that axis, and thus 'you should vote for me.'  Nothing is black and white though, so its a mug's game.

As for transactive parties, I'll pose a simple question:  Is being principled a virtue if that principle is wrong? 

If the NDP said tomorrow that come hell or high water what Canada needs is an end to free markets and pure redistribution of wealth across the board, would it be principled?  Yes.  Would it be wrong?  Also Yes. 
In my opinion, and I feel I am swimming upstream here, being principled is not a virtue.  What that principle IS is the virtue.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

I have never believed patronage has not continued since 1984.  I believe it can no longer be practiced as openly and assuredly as the LPC was accustomed to in order to grease their system of recruitment and development of functionaries and candidates, and that has weakened the LPC.

Do you actually think the PCs in the 80's, Liberals in the 90's and 00's, and CPC since '06 didn't (and don't) use patronage to, in your words, "grease their system of recruitment and development of functionaries and candidates"?

Harper looked at ways to reform the Senate.  Yes, he would have to "lead", but not in the literal meaning of the word.  What that means in practice is that he would have to find gifts outside the framework of the reform to give to everyone with the power to say "No", because nothing inherent in Senate reform has popped up that has moved enough stakeholders to desire reform for its own sake.  It is not like constitutional reform in which the changes to the constitutional framework itself provide the payoffs.  There is nothing he wants to trade away to reform Senate.  It actually has nothing to do with "leadership".  This is a failing of the provincial governments which will not do the right thing in itself, not the federal government.

 

You have defeated your own argument.  If it is failing of the provincial governments to not do "the right thing" in itself, why does the PM get a pass for not pressing for them to do "the right thing", if it is, after all, "the right thing"?

I'm afraid I have a higher standard for the PM than you do.  I DO expect the PM to be a leader of the whole nation and for the whole nation, in the literal meaning of the word.  And if that leader doesn't have a majority in Parliament, fine by me.  Use those leadership skills and explain to the nation why something needs to be done and how, and convince members of the other parties to vote with the government.  Any party leader who is afraid or unwilling to do this is unfit to be PM.  (and that applies to all parties)

The NDP can call out no-one on this matter since their choice is impractical and asinine.  What is missing is a well-deserved media scolding for such a pointless promise

.

Other major English speaking Commonwealth nations have abolished or reformed their Senates, so the suggestion is neither impractical or asinine.  (and they also changed their voting systems from FPTP to something better too, without earning the wrath of god or plagues o' locusts...)

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

This is exactly what I was saying.  The LPC and the NDP are fundamentally different.  One is capitalist the other socialist.  IF the LPC were to collapse many, many liberal supporters would go to the CPC, which most likely would change the CPC to make it more centrist as well.  The NDP would attract those who are not overly committed to capitalism.  Think of all the LPC support in big urban centres.  No way in hell that's going to the NDP esp as you need a 6 figure job just to live there.

So 41% of Albertans are socialist?  Wasn't it entirely the big urban centres in Alberta that went to the NDP? 

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

The problem for either Trudeau or Mulcair is to believably claim that he has a better plan.

"The Conservatives have not done as good a job as might have been done" is not equivalent to "we can do better".  The NDP and LPC could do worse.  "Harper is not optimum" and "Harper is better than Mulcair or Trudeau" can both be true at the same time.

Recapitulate some of the primary measures customarily taken during a recession: decrease taxes, increase temporary useful spending.

Do not increase taxes, do not start new entitlement programs, and do not increase the debt overhang unnecessarily with pointless spending: it limits borrowing options and the cost of servicing debt squeezes out program spending.

The NDP and LPC propose to increase their net tax take and start new spending.  Bad timing.

I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

Apologies for the multiple posts.  I haven't figured out how to have quotes from different sources in the same message box. 

On a separate issue, I haven't seen much talk from any of the three main parties about their election strategy for the military and procurement.  Yes, we have seen lots of photo ops announcing new plumbing or whatnot, and new ship names for a potential fleet in the next decades, and we have seen Byers' report, but has there been any discussion on a new Defence White Paper by any of the Big Three?

Harrigan

 

[Edward Campbell]

Apologies for the multiple posts.  I haven't figured out how to have quotes from different sources in the same message box. 

On a separate issue, I haven't seen much talk from any of the three main parties about their election strategy for the military and procurement.  Yes, we have seen lots of photo ops announcing new plumbing or whatnot, and new ship names for a potential fleet in the next decades, and we have seen Byers' report, but has there been any discussion on a new Defence White Paper by any of the Big Three?

Harrigan

I doubt defence will play much of a role in the election. Canadians are, traditionally, disinterested in their own defences ... they worry that it is too expensive and they wonder why someone else (the British until August of 1940, the Americans since then) cannot/will not/should not just do it for us. Foreign affairs might get more of a mention, but don't expect Prime Minister Harper to tie foreign policy to defence spending, although he will fault M Trudeau for wanting to withdraw our (small) military contingents from Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

 

[Scott]

Apologies for the multiple posts.  I haven't figured out how to have quotes from different sources in the same message box. 

I use multiple tabs.

One for the reply I will post.

Subsequent tab(s) to quote other posts and then copy and paste the code you see in the reply box of that post. Drop it into the first box and, voila.

Hope that helps

Scott
Staff

 

[Edward Campbell]

I forget which member, here, mentioned it a few days ago, but David Akin, Sun News, looks at the a small but "increasingly significant group of voters — the Blue-Orange Switchers," in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Sun:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/07/11/its-orange-versus-blue

It's orange versus blue

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, JULY 11, 2015

OTTAWA - The brain trust at NDP headquarters had a tricky problem to solve last week.

As lousy economic news piled up, the NDP wanted to amp up attacks on Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But they had to do it in a way that would avoid making those who put him in office feel stupid for having voted for him.

“It’s like a Rogers customer telling a Telus customer who they’re trying to get to switch saying you’ve been an idiot for five years by being with Telus, now come over to us,” said pollster David Coletto, the CEO of Abacus Data.

If the NDP can win over this increasingly significant group of voters — the Blue-Orange Switchers — they’ll sit on the government benches for the first time in history.

Conversely, Harper must hold the support of that group to stay in 24 Sussex.

In his firm’s most recent survey, from earlier this month, Coletto found 9% would consider voting NDP or Conservative but will definitely not vote Liberal.

“There’s far more Conservatives open to voting NDP,” Coletto said.

That’s why New Democrats must be careful about the language they use to criticize Harper. This voter, after all, still likes Harper.

“The NDP learned that from how they dealt with the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. They made the conscious choice in 2011 not to attack outright the Bloc. They didn’t want to tell Quebecers that for all these years, you’ve done the stupid thing by voting for a party that could never win. They simply said you could do better.”

One thing these voters do agree on: They don’t like Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

Abacus found that just 4% had a positive evaluation of Trudeau while 72% had a negative evaluation.

By comparison, when these Blue-Orange Switchers were asked to evaluate the other leaders, 52% gave Harper a thumbs up and 43% did the same for Mulcair.

And just 4% gave Mulcair a negative rating while Harper’s negative number was 14%.

But who will these Blue-Orange switchers vote for?

Abacus found 39% of Blue-Orange switchers are ready to vote Conservative, 26% would go NDP but a big chunk — 28% -- are undecided. They just know they won’t vote Liberal.

Tories and New Democrats will fight for undecided Blue-Orange Switchers in ridings in Quebec City, in factory towns in southwestern Ontario, in prairie cities like Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon and Edmonton and all over the increasingly important battleground province of British Columbia.

A Vancouver-based pollster who is an expert on BC voters says the biggest pool of potential blue-orange switchers is in the suburbs around Vancouver — Port Moody, Richmond, and Surrey.

“If these voters feel vulnerable or the election is driven by left of centre issues — health, environment — they will consider the NDP. If they feel the Conservatives have lost touch, there are enough blue collar voters and populists to make a difference,” the pollster said on condition he not be identified.

There’s no doubt the NDP rise in the polls has been powered by pitches to what pollster Frank Graves calls the “promiscuous progressive.”

These are those Liberal-NDP switchers who like $15-a-day childcare and a hike (small as it may be) in corporate taxes.

But to steal seats from Conservatives, Mulcair will focus on populist parts of his platform, the parts that have that sticking-up-for-the-little-guy appeal.

He’ll cut taxes for small business. He’ll bring big banks, cell phone providers, cable companies and airlines to heel with more consumer-friendly policies.

New Democrats have been polishing this populist appeal for more than a decade.

I once watched Mulcair’s predecessor, the late Jack Layton, stand up in a packed hall in Nanaimo, B.C. in the 2006 election campaign and warn voters there that Harper had lost the populist touch, that while the Reform Party cared for the grassroots, Harper’s Conservatives now thought more about corporate fat cats than families struggling to make ends meet.

A week later, I watched Harper campaign on Vancouver Island and his message to these same voters was a mirror image of Layton’s.

The NDP used to be a party of the people, Harper said, but they had lost their populist touch and now represented downtown elites and thought more about union bosses than they did working men and women.

As this summer campaign continues, you’re certain to hear this rhetoric repeated as Mulcair and Harper duel for this vital populist voter.

This bit is fascinating: "David Coletto, the CEO of Abacus Data ... in his firm’s most recent survey, from earlier this month, found 9% would consider voting NDP or Conservative but will definitely not vote Liberal." That, 9% is a pretty large number.

The article says: "Abacus found 39% of Blue-Orange switchers are ready to vote Conservative, 26% would go NDP but a big chunk — 28% -- are undecided. They just know they won’t vote Liberal."

Those voters appear to be most commonly found in the Quebec City area (the only place in la belle province where the CPC has strength) and in the lower mainland of BC, presumably in the suburbs.

 

[Kirkhill]

It sounds to me as if the voter being described is the White Union Member - whose dollars, before they retired, were voted in support of the NDP by their leadership, and who tribally identified with the "labour movement" but who traditionally were traditionalists as well as social and fiscal conservatives.

In the bar they never had much time for ethnics, elites or the more "artistically inclined".

They have always been a very poor fit with the NDP that that party's leadership upholds and struggles to display every night in sound-bites. 

Putting it bluntly - the shop floor is not where I would go to find supporters of gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, women's rights or ethnic rights.  I have worked on many shop floors and drunk many beers with the folks that work there.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Do you actually think the PCs in the 80's, Liberals in the 90's and 00's, and CPC since '06 didn't (and don't) use patronage

My point is not "those guys did then, and no-one does now."  Again: "I believe it can no longer be practiced as openly and assuredly as the LPC was accustomed to".

>You have defeated your own argument.  If it is failing of the provincial governments to not do "the right thing" in itself, why does the PM get a pass for not pressing for them to do "the right thing", if it is, after all, "the right thing"?

If the standard is that Harper must always tilt at a windmill even if we can all see that it will kill him politically, then no - he never gets a pass.  (You can find articles and comments to that effect in many places - people who want to see Harper gone are pissed off when he does not self-immolate, so they criticize him for not self-immolating; ie. changing his mind).  The PM was prepared to move on reforming Senate as an issue.  He wasn't obligated to give away the store to do so.  He was smart enough not to exhaust himself on it.  He was smart enough to start filling Senate seats with a purpose when he realized that a coalition of other parties would fill them if they could knock off his minority.

>Other major English speaking Commonwealth nations have abolished or reformed their Senates, so the suggestion is neither impractical or asinine.

What others have done is irrelevant.  The requirements for reforming or abolishing the Senate _in Canada_ have been explored, and the constitutional and political conditions make it nigh impossible (impractical).  (Since I deplore increasing centralization of power in the PMO, it's also asinine.)  Mulcair is grandstanding on the issue, and the media - apart from a couple of articles that pointed out the impracticality of abolishing Senate and the impossibility of doing it from the House alone - is giving him "a pass" so that "blah blah Senate blah blah Duffy blah blah" continues to have legs.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

They might, but the Harper campaigning for re-election now is the same Harper from 06-15 while the Liberals responsible for 93-06 are gone and the ones campaigning now do not have anywhere near the same policy chops.  It's basically similar to saying, "See what a big navy we had in 1945!".

 

[Harrigan]

I doubt defence will play much of a role in the election. Canadians are, traditionally, disinterested in their own defences ... they worry that it is too expensive and they wonder why someone else (the British until August of 1940, the Americans since then) cannot/will not/should not just do it for us. Foreign affairs might get more of a mention, but don't expect Prime Minister Harper to tie foreign policy to defence spending, although he will fault M Trudeau for wanting to withdraw our (small) military contingents from Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

I agree with you there.  It is unlikely, which is a shame.  I think we badly need a new Security Strategy and a new Defence White Paper, particulary if we are going to commit to two major projects (Shipbuilding program, and F-35) that will consume most of DND's budgets for decades to come.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

>I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

They might, but the Harper campaigning for re-election now is the same Harper from 06-15 while the Liberals responsible for 93-06 are gone and the ones campaigning now do not have anywhere near the same policy chops.  It's basically similar to saying, "See what a big navy we had in 1945!".

Yes, Harper is the same, but the Liberals campaigning against them will boast of more balanced budgets than the entire Harper 9-year term.  Ralph Goodale was the Finance Minister from 2003-2006.  John McCallum was the National Revenue Minister at the same time.  They are both running for re-election in 2015.  One would presume one of them would be a potential Finance Minister if the Liberals were to finish with a plurality.

I don't know, but I would expect the Liberals will play up that financial experience.

Harrigan