Election 2015

[Harrigan]

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.

Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.

No, I expect better from my PM, and that is fair warning to Trudeau and Mulcair. 

What others have done is irrelevant.

Oh, OK.

The requirements for reforming or abolishing the Senate _in Canada_ have been explored, and the constitutional and political conditions make it nigh impossible (impractical).

We get that Harper believes that the constitutional and political conditions make it impossible.  Of course, those conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, and 1990 but, as you have said, what others have done is irrelevant.

Since I deplore increasing centralization of power in the PMO, it's also asinine.

Any PMO, or just non-CPC ones?  Not trying to be snarky here, but if you deplore increasing centralization of power in the PMO, surely you must detest the present PMO.

"blah blah Senate blah blah Duffy blah blah" continues to have legs

And why shouldn't it have legs?  Do you believe the Senate/Duffy scandal is some sort of media conspiracy?  Was AdScam?  Personally, I am only marginally interested in the Senate scandal.  If it turns out to be more or less nothing, then it won't hurt the govt at all, so bring it on.  If it is something big (which I doubt), then is it not rather important that the public knows this before the election  (just as we demanded to know the results of the Gomery Commission before the 2006 election)?

Harrigan

 

[PuckChaser]

Duffy only has legs because the media is attempting to embarrass the Tories. The auditor general's report showed the Liberals were just as guilty misspending money, and in large amounts, but they're getting 0 press coverage. That being said, $20 million to find $1 million in bad expenses seems ridiculous to me, and the whole thing reeks of gotcha journalism.

 

[Remius]

Duffy only has legs because the media is attempting to embarrass the Tories. The auditor general's report showed the Liberals were just as guilty misspending money, and in large amounts, but they're getting 0 press coverage. That being said, $20 million to find $1 million in bad expenses seems ridiculous to me, and the whole thing reeks of gotcha journalism.

Sorry, but Duffy is getting more mileage because:

1) Duffy used to be one of them (media)
2) The PMO was involved
3) the first to go to trial

 

[Edward Campbell]

Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.

No, I expect better from my PM, and that is fair warning to Trudeau and Mulcair. 

...
Harrigan

I'm going to suggest that many COs have been caught on the horns of a similar dilemma and I guess that many (most?) have reacted much as Prime Minister Harper has done.

What CO has not been given an order than (s)he knows, in her/his heart, is wrong? Who has not gone to the brigade commander and, in a private moment, protested? The brigade commander, who, we might suspect, also objects to the order has, however, being an excellent officer, made the unpleasant order his/her own and has clapped the worried CO on the shoulder and said, "I know this is very hard, <name>, but it is necessary for the good of the service, even if that's not entirely evident from your perspective in 1NNNN." The CO might guess that the brigade commander was, himself (or herself), up to see the higher formation commander with a similar complaint, but, here we are ... 

What does the good CO do? Two choices, of course:

    1. Resign and then make a public noise about this issue ... if anyone will listen; or

    2. Go back and, again, "make the order his/her own" and ensure that it is executed in 1NNNN in an exemplary manner.

        (Note, please, that I did not give a "choice" of returning to the unit and disobeying the order; I do not believe that is an ethical choice when faced with a lawful command.)

The Supremes (higher HQ) have given the prime minister (the CO) some pretty difficult arcs of fire: arcs that may make accomplishing the task at hand so difficult as to be a practical impossibility in the current political environment. Disobedience is not an option because the Supremes have given the constitutional equivalent of a lawful command.

What is the "current political environment?" In my opinion it is one in which no one in his/her right mind* wants a constitutional congress, and, since that is, de facto, pretty much the only route the Supremes have left open** there is not much a prime minister (Harper or Mulcair) can do except try to manage with the current mish-mash.

_____
* I, on the other hand, being old, bored with life and just a little bit off my rocker would love to see a full blown Constitutional Congress, with absolutely everything on the table. I believe that a good prime minister, a tough guy with a fairly fresh majority, could radically reshape the country, for the better: Senate reform, which would be part of the deal, would be part of the fallout, but only a small part. The late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau grumbled that, in constitutional negotiations, the provinces only wanted to "trade rights for fish;" I agree with him; and my "good" PM would give them all the damned fish (and other resources) they wanted in exchange for what (s)he wanted:

    1. The complete repeal of the British North America Act, properly the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982 ~ replaced by a few, smallish acts respecting the parliament of Canada and the divisions of powers between the national and provincial
        and city governments. (In effect Canada would have no written constitution ~ a form which I believe to be infinitely superior to what we and the Americans (and Germans and Indians and Russians, and, and, and ...) have). It's important to
        understand that we already have an unwritten Constitution: in Reference re Secession of Quebec our Supreme Court said: "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of
        constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

    2. Only five provinces: Pacific Canada, including the Yukon; Western Canada, including the NWT and Nunavut; Central Canada; Canada de l'Est and Atlantic Canada ~ provinces can rename themselves as they wish; and

    3. Absolute independence for provinces in, including taxing authority for, all matters in their exclusive areas of responsibility (§91 and §92 of the Constitution Act of 1867), except when such matters involve international relations, which remain the exclusive responsibility
        of the national government.

** I suspect there might be a political work-around, but it might, also, be dangerous ~ like walking into a constitutional minefield.

 

[a_majoor]

Every time I read things like that from you, it just strengthens my convictioin that you should become the Regent of Canada after HM passes (long may she reign)...

 

[Underway]

Interesting insights on the Conservative position from David McLaughlin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/tories-have-a-healthy-voter-base-but-is-it-strong-enough/article25421145/

David McLaughlin has been a Conservative Party chief of staff at the federal and provincial levels.

-------------------

Several years ago, during the minority government years, a top political adviser to Stephen Harper told me the goal of the Harper Conservative Party was to win “three out of every four elections.” It might lose now and then, but not often, nor for too long. Wishful thinking or hard calculus?

Embedded in this thinking are two presumptions. First, that Canada is becoming a more conservative society, an advantage to the Conservatives’ quest to become the natural governing party. And second, that the party can attract and retain a winning coalition of diverse but conservative voters. Let’s consider each.

Whether you start with Mr. Harper’s first election in 2004 (which he lost) or the 2006 vote, when his winning streak began, the Oct. 19 federal election will be either the fifth or fourth contest his Conservative Party faces. The “three out of four” theory would mean that, either way, he is due to lose.

Despite opinion polls that point to strong NDP support, the Conservatives’ resilient base gives them a solid voter floor beneath which they are unlikely to fall (that is more than 100 seats coming out of the gate). The real challenge is the Tories’ voter support ceiling. Ten years in government and an off-putting political style have lowered that ceiling beyond what they need for another majority government.

A minority government is not impossible. New seats in Western Canada and Ontario combined with no vote-splitting on the centre-right give the Conservatives a serious shot at winning the most seats on election night.

But to govern for any length of time would require the return of the Bloc Québécois holding the balance of power. Otherwise, the New Democrats or Liberals would seek to defeat the government on a confidence or budget vote and force another election, one the Conservatives could lose big. A minority government would prove an illusory victory for Mr. Harper.

Absent a resurgent Bloc that steals NDP support, Mr. Harper’s path to any victory requires what might be called a “coalition plus” calculus. He needs to maintain a complex regional combination of seats in all four Western provinces, suburban Ontario seats, a slice of Quebec City seats, a rump in the Maritimes and rural seats everywhere.

He needs to appeal to traditional-values conservatives, small-government conservatives, law-and-order conservatives, middle-class pocketbook conservatives and identified ethnic-voter conservatives – as well as to opposition voters who just can’t abide the alternatives to Mr. Harper. Not an easy task, given that both the NDP and Liberals are positioned near or above their 2011 popular vote results, while the Conservatives are well below theirs.

A “three out of four” calculus presumes little alteration in how the other parties position themselves. It also presumes that the electorate will tire of the Tories for a short while, give them a temporary time out, then return them to their good graces.

This brings us to the second presumption: a durable conservative coalition. At less than 30 per cent of the popular vote, that coalition looks frayed right now. Two main reasons account for this. First, Mr. Harper’s governing style is wearing increasingly thin. A needless antagonism pervades the government’s actions and communications and policy decisions are anchored to talking-point messaging.

Second, the government’s success in forging a centre-right consensus on issues such as lower taxes and balanced budgets has forced the Liberals and the NDP to do so, too. The differences between the parties has been muted. In short, elements of the Conservative coalition are being wooed away with no replacements being brought in.

This election is shaping up as a transitional one for the Conservatives. Knowing but one leader and one style of governing, the party has become entrenched and blinkered in its electoral attitude and method. This may yet pay dividends; voters are fickle and campaigns count.Yet, all parties and all governments need to adapt to stay relevant and successful.

An inability or unwillingness by the Conservatives to adapt and change on the inside could be the reason they find themselves on the outside four months from now, dealing with a very messy transition of another kind.

This: Second, the government’s success in forging a centre-right consensus on issues such as lower taxes and balanced budgets has forced the Liberals and the NDP to do so, too. The differences between the parties has been muted. In short, elements of the Conservative coalition are being wooed away with no replacements being brought in.

The Conservatives have been very successful of bringing the political discourse to the right when it comes to financial matters.  Or can we attribute that to Paul Martin?  If the election is fought on these taxation and budgets issues can they really win.  Or have they already won because the next government will be instituting conservative financial policies no mater the party....

 

[Kirkhill]

....

The Conservatives have been very successful of bringing the political discourse to the right when it comes to financial matters.  Or can we attribute that to Paul Martin?  ....

I think the argument can be made that these two gents changed the conversation so that Paul Martin's budgets were possible.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the argument can be made that these two gents changed the conversation so that Paul Martin's budgets were possible.
...

Actually, I think it was these three guys ...

  And

              Michael Wilson                                                          Don Mazankowski and Brian Mulroney

Despite being scared witless by Mme Solange Denis (of "goodbye Charlie Brown" fame), these three (aided by the Wall Street Journal's "northern peso" quip) sensitized Canadians to the problem of debts and deficits. The Mulroney government, in which Wilson and Maz held the finance portfolio, actually balanced the operations budget ~ programme spending ~ and, when they left office, the deficit (there still was a whopping deficit) was all going toward paying interest on the debt, most of which had been borrowed by Pierre Trudeau but which had compounded under Trudeau's and Mulroney's governments.

By the time the Chrétien/Martin team came to power (1993) Canadian were more than ready for a good dose of belt tightening.

Mulroney, Wilson and Mazankowski actually used their offices to wage a very necessary fear campaign which was exploited, properly and well, by Prime Minister Chrétien.

 

[Underway]

Gah my eyes !!!!! 

I will never forget Royal Canadian Airfarce's Preston Manning.  Oh god it was funny, especially when he came on and played into the caricature.

Actually I would argue that Mulroney had more to do with that particular budget than those two.  They drove up the deficit so high that we had no choice but to deal with it harshly.  However Mulroney left the key to fixing the problem when he left.  The GST.

*damn ninja'd*

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, from the NDP, is good, hard hitting attack ad.

 

[PuckChaser]

Michael Sona is a Conservative Robocall Operative? Is he like the CANSOF of robocalls or something?

 

[jollyjacktar]

Here, from the NDP, is good, hard hitting attack ad.

Ouch

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Yes, Harper is the same, but the Liberals campaigning against them will boast of more balanced budgets than the entire Harper 9-year term.

Context matters.  The Harper 9-year term includes deficits because of the 2008 financial hiccup.  The Liberals (remember Ignatieff putting the Conservative government "on probation"?) wanted deficits too (remember the G20 "2% of GDP" target?).  And since the counterfactual Liberal government had to be a coalition with the NDP, good luck arguing it would have been more frugal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.

Why?  Apples and oranges.  Propose something that makes sense.

>We get that Harper believes that the constitutional and political conditions make it impossible.  Of course, those conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, and 1990 but, as you have said, what others have done is irrelevant.

"We" also get that people have written articles about the impracticality in the wake of the Supreme Court's advice.  Regardless, the assertion that political conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, or 1990 is foolish; and the constitutional considerations can not be disentangled from the contemporary political conditions.

When I referred to others, I referred to your "Other major English speaking Commonwealth nations", in case that was unclear in my previous post.

If you know of something strictly inside the lines of Senate reform (ie. not involving extraneous transfers of money or authority outside the scope of how Senate is constituted) that would get the necessary parties to agreement, let's hear it.

>Any PMO, or just non-CPC ones?

Any.

>surely you must detest the present PMO.

Yes.  But not as much as I would detest a LPC or NDP one.

>Do you believe the Senate/Duffy scandal is some sort of media conspiracy?

I believe it's a Senate scandal, not a House scandal, involving Mike Duffy, not Stephen Harper.  I also know that it is basically about one guy cheating on his expenses for personal gain and/or a sloppy set of Senate (not House) expense guidelines, not a party-orchestrated systematic looting and kickback scheme to strengthen the party's political power.  Bit of a difference.  As for the media: they managed to educate the public on the finer details of how things work back when the NDP and LPC were trying to form a coalition government; maybe they could be honest brokers about the difference between MPs and Senators and the three distinct elements of Parliament - the Queen, the House, and the Senate - and remind voters that Harper is neither the Queen nor a Senator.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Sharing this hear because of the political angle ....

5 ridings where Stephen Harper's trade deal with Ukraine gets noticed

(....)

Manitoba

Riding: Elmwood-Transcona

Ukranians as percentage of population: 20.8 per cent

State of play:

The Winnipeg-area riding had been held by the New Democrats for nearly three decades but the Conservatives eked out an exceptionally narrow victory in 2011 with candidate Lawrence Toet, who captured the riding with only 300 votes.

Toet is running for re-election this fall but he is facing off against a well-known name in the area.

The NDP challenger is Daniel Blaikie, whose father Bill was Elmood-Transcona's MP for two decades before he left federal politics.

Daniel Blaikie's sister Rebecca is the president of the NDP.

Saskatchewan

Riding: Yorkton-Melville

Ukrainian population as percentage of population: 27.9 per cent

State of play:

This is the riding with the largest Ukrainian-Canadian population in the country. Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz has represented this riding since 1993, when he won it from the NDP's Lorne Nystrom, who'd held it since the late 1960s.

The Tories have had a lock on the vote since Breitkreuz took over, with the party increasing its vote share each year since the 2006 campaign for a win with nearly 70 per cent of ballots cast in 2011.

Breitkreuz is not running for re-election. Replacing him is Cathay Wagantall, who had sought the Conservative nomination in Alberta in past elections but moved back to her home province of Saskatchewan in 2012.

Riding: Saskatoon-West

Ukranians as percentage of population: 14.8 per cent

State of play:

This newly-created riding is one the NDP has targeted for victory come this election.

The party sees a seat there because the riding is largely urban, which has been where most of their popular support has been in the province in recent elections.

The NDP candidate for the riding is Sherri Benson, a long-time community activist. The Conservatives are running city councillor and federal civil servant, Randy Donauer, and the Liberals are fielding Lisa Abbott, a lawyer who has also advised the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations.

Alberta

Riding: Edmonton-Strathcona

Ukrainians as percentage of population: 13.4 per cent

State of Play:

This riding has the distinction of being the only federal seat currently held by the New Democrats in the traditionally Conservative province of Alberta.

For decades this riding saw a three-way race in nearly every election, with both the Liberals and NDP competitive against the Tories until the 2006 campaign, when the NDP started gaining support.

In the 2008 campaign, Linda Duncan won the riding for the New Democrats by fewer than 500 votes, unseating Tory MP Rahim Jaffer.

In the 2011 campaign, she increased her vote share, winning by more than 6,000 votes.

Lawyer Len Thom is running for the Conservatives and another lawyer, Eleanor Olszewski, is running for the Liberals.

Ontario

Riding: Etobicoke-Centre

Percentage of Ukranians: 7.4 per cent

State of Play:

Though less influential in terms of size in this Toronto-area riding than electoral districts out west, the Ukrainian-Canadians of Etobicoke-Centre were targeted explicitly by the Conservatives in the 2011 election, according to campaign documents leaked to the media ahead of that vote.

The fight for the riding was so intense it wound up in Supreme Court, where justices quashed a lower court's call for a byelection on the basis of voting irregularities that saw Conservative candidate Ted Opitz win by only 26 votes.

The top court's ruling narrowed that further, leaving Opitz with a six-vote win over Liberal incumbent — and Ukrainian-Canadian himself — Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

Wrzesnewskyj is running again and in an interview with a Ukrainian-Canadian newspaper in late June said Canada needs to take even more of a leadership role in the Ukrainian crisis.

"So, at this critical juncture, we don't just need people that show respect to the community by showing up and saying all the right things, you need people that can work hard to make Canada make a difference in deeds," according to the article on the Novy Shliakh website.

"We have a special relationship with Ukraine, let's give it substance by showing leadership at this critical time."

Opitz, who is of Polish descent, has been the Conservatives' front man on all things Ukraine for months, and was one of thirteen Canadians banned from travelling to Russia under retaliatory sanctions imposed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Also from the prairies ... this ad is in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:

         

          David Akin (Sun News) says, "Yet more third party ads -- this time
          its the wealthy Public Service Alliance of Canada with an
          anti-Harper, anti-Conservative campaign. The Toronto Star
          reports it's a TV, radio and print campaign."

This sort of thing, a well funded, very professional, multi-media union sponsored attack advertising campaign, worked very well against Tim Hudak in the recent Ontario election.

 

[C-Aitchison]

Thought people here would find this interesting. Lynne Yelich, Minister of State for Consular Affairs, lost their riding nomination.

OTTAWA — A Saskatchewan sportscaster has snatched the Conservative party nomination away from a longtime Conservative MP — and cabinet minister — who had been seeking to run in a newly-created riding.

Kevin Waugh had only announced last month that he would challenge Minister of State for Consular Affairs Lynne Yelich for the nomination in the riding of Saskatoon-Grasswood.

Yelich had been the MP for Blackstrap since 2000, but that riding was sliced up during the redistribution of boundaries for the upcoming federal campaign and she had decided to run in the more urban portion of the new riding.

Waugh was not immediately available for interviews following his win late Monday night.

"What can I say....Thank you everyone for your well wishes and support," he wrote on Twitter.

Though several Conservative MPs were challenged for the nomination in new ridings across the country, Yelich is only one of two to be defeated.

The other was longtime Alberta MP Rob Anders who failed to win the party's nomination in two different Calgary-area districts.

The only other cabinet minister to face a challenge was former aboriginal affairs minister and current government whip John Duncan, who eventually succeeded in winning the nomination for the new B.C. riding of Courtenay-Alberni.

Mike Lake, parliamentary secretary for industry, was challenged for the nomination in a new Edmonton-area riding, but won the vote.

Yelich had been rumoured to be thinking about retiring ahead of the fall vote, but announced in mid-June she would run for the nomination in the new riding.

Though the electoral battle lines were redrawn ahead of the October vote, Saskatchewan has not been allocated any more seats for the next Parliament.

But ridings that had traditionally been a mix of urban and rural communities were split more definitely between the two.

The new riding of Saskatoon-Grasswood is among three new urban ridings for the city of Saskatoon.

For now, 13 of the provinces' 14 ridings in total are held by the Conservatives, and one by longtime Liberal Ralph Goodale.

But most of the contests have historically been between the Conservatives and the NDP.

Still, that party didn't win a single seat in the province in the last election, a blow considering it was born in Saskatchewan in the 1960s.

Source: http://m.chroniclejournal.com/news/national/tory-minister-lynne-yelich-loses-party-nomination-in-new-saskatchewan/article_d0dc0d5d-83ea-5752-8361-946067e6f9ee.html?mode=jqm

 

[a_majoor]

If anyone were to really decide to go after the third party public service ads and the PS itself, it would be a fairly simple matter to start high lighting the differential in pay between PS positions and comparable private sector jobs. Add the differential when benefits and pensions are factored in (most of which are NOT available to private sector workers) and the taxpayers who are funding the PS might start to wonder just "why" the PS is involved in the election campaign.

Voting "for" the PS is essentially voting against the taxpayer.

Just saying

 

[Brad Sallows]

Apparently things are worse now than in 1997.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If anyone were to really decide to go after the third party public service ads and the PS itself, it would be a fairly simple matter to start high lighting the differential in pay between PS positions and comparable private sector jobs. Add the differential when benefits and pensions are factored in (most of which are NOT available to private sector workers) and the taxpayers who are funding the PS might start to wonder just "why" the PS is involved in the election campaign.

Voting "for" the PS is essentially voting against the taxpayer.

Just saying

And saying really stupid stuff.  Every plumber, electrician, maintenance individual I work with can make much more in the private sector.  Try and have a clue before you bring out the big brush.................