Election 2015

[PuckChaser]

You know Kilo- you are right. I really hate it when the government gives meback some of mymoney. That is just about the worst thing any government can do....

Its not $60 a child, but here's some milpoints.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>This government is in a league of it's own when it comes to these offences

Probably true, because AdScam is the pro league and the CPC is still in the beer league as far as corruption.  Let me know when the CPC is laundering public funds into a kickback scheme to fill its own coffers.

 

[Brad Sallows]

MMP is basically an insult to representative democracy.  Parties have enough electoral advantages without giving them their own special pool of candidates.

The NDP are not uniformly enthusiastic about reforming away FPTP.  Here in BC, they know it would mean permanent opposition status with Liberals and Conservatives forming government in perpetuity.

 

[Harrigan]

Political power corrupts.  Once in power its a simple fact that the NDP would do whatever it takes to stay there, and that would include the belief that the can consistently win elections, especially if the Liberals die.  I will love watching the fall of the party's "holier than thou" attitude over time.  It will make for fine political soap opera.  If they don't change their attitude they will not find themselves in power very long as the Liberal and Torys have no problem hitting below the belt.  Right now the NDP seem content to let 3rd party advertising do their dirty work for them.

Mr. Simpson also posits that Canadians DON'T want a change in the political system.  Every time it goes to referendum it dies.  Horribly.  By our very nature people fear change, especially in Canada.  Don't like thinking about disturbing things like nasty military folks killing people or politicians arguing.  We are so non-confrontational as a people its almost a joke.  Changing politics to be more confrontational and dramatic is not in our collective DNA.  And the people who do vote don't want to lose their power.  So they like things the way they are.

As well many here in Canada come from countries where some similar sort of alternative voting is in place and don't trust it.  Political backroom deals and all.

You might be right, but as we have never had a federal NDP government, we don't know how they'll react if they were to win.  I tend to agree that all politicians are more or less the same, but we can't say "Well, if the Liberals and Conservatives do it, then obviously the NDP will do it too). 

Personally, I am not in a hurry, or looking forward to, having other parties descend to the "below the belt" levels of the two traditional main parties.  Why would anyone want that?

Mr.Simpson is correct that referendums in the past have failed.  As well they should have - they were confusing concepts that were not explained well, and probably more importantly, were being 'sponsored' by parties that didn't stand to gain from a change from FPTP.  However, in 2015, some of the systems in use around the world are not all that hard to understand.

How many countries have switched from a PR-based system TO the First Past the Post system?

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

There are two problems with most proportional representations schemes:

    1. They threaten the representative nature of our democratic system, ~ wherein I (help to) pick an individual (normally from my community) who represents my community* in the House of Commons;

    2. They prop up, actually reward, the weak and unproductive political parties and movements. They detract from compromise within parties and promote
        appeasement and deal making between parties.

Both, in my opinion, make most PR schemes bad ideas. I do not believe, not for a µsecond, that Israel or Germany are more democratic than Canada just because they have PR ... but I do believe that "cabinet making" in both countries always results in disappointing compromises for everyone.

It is the second reason ~ rewarding the weak ~ that should concern the NDP, right now.

_____
* And that (communities) is what the "commons" in HoC means; the French name, Chambre des communes, is, actually, a better reflection of what "commons" means. It's not "lords" vs "commoners," it is lords vs communities, towns, villages and so on.

1.  Pure PR systems are awkward, for sure (as is pure democracy).  But my understanding is that the NDP prefers MMP, which is a hybrid system which includes geographical representation AND proportionality, thus not threatening representation at all.

2.  You have given an excellent summary of why the two main parties in an existing FPTP system would want to keep it, because by having everyone in 'their' party, there is a modicum of control.  A good example of this would be the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives, a volatile mixture of Blue Tories, Red Tories, Western Reformers, and Quebec sovereigntists all in one group.  I wouldn't call any of those four groups particularly weak or unproductive.

Your point is exactly why I am so surprised that the Liberals would be proposing to change from a system that clearly benefits them (and the CPC) the most.  It doesn't surprise me at all that the NDP would want to change it.

In the end, the entire debate is not a question of whether our not Country A or Country B is "more democratic", the question is whether or not the electoral process produces a result that is most representative of the voter's intentions.  PR does that by definition, but I don't think anyone would want to throw away the representative aspect which you mentioned - hence MMP.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

MMP is basically an insult to representative democracy.  Parties have enough electoral advantages without giving them their own special pool of candidates.
The NDP are not uniformly enthusiastic about reforming away FPTP.  Here in BC, they know it would mean permanent opposition status with Liberals and Conservatives forming government in perpetuity.

Personally I think that particular concern with "list candidates" is a red herring - if a Party has a list of candidates that they want as MPs, some of those that don't make the PR cut for "listed" MP seats will still be working for the Party after the election in some way or other, and having an influence on decisions.

However, there is a solution that can be enacted within MMP that sorts that issue out:  fill out the PR-portion of the seats with the losing candidates who had the highest vote percentage within their own ridings.  They wouldn't represent the constituency they ran in, but they would at least have demonstrated that they can command a good chunk of the electorate in an area, and are thus deserving of a seat as MP.  I would prefer this to a straight "list".

FPTP, designed in the 19th Century, has its strengths and weaknesses, and I can understand why fans of a two-party system would want to keep it, as it serves their political purposes.  As I have no particular party loyalty, I would rather see Parliament reflect voter preference.  The debate is interesting, though.

Let me know when the CPC is laundering public funds into a kickback scheme to fill its own coffers.

You mean, other than the 'In and Out' scandal?

Harrigan

 

[Edward Campbell]

The last three words in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, are "things have changed." They have, indeed, if they are forcing the Liberals' hand so early ... before the campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-switches-targets-in-bid-to-cut-mulcairs-momentum-in-polls/article25598316/

Trudeau switches targets in bid to cut Mulcair’s momentum in polls

CAMPBELL CLARK
The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jul. 21, 2015

The dynamics have changed. Where once Justin Trudeau shrugged off the NDP, insisting his opponent was Stephen Harper, the Liberal Leader has made the telltale decision to switch targets.

Now, the Liberals are campaigning like the third-place party, attacking Thomas Mulcair and the New Democrats rather than keeping their guns trained solely on Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.

That is driven by the reversal of fortunes for the two opposition parties in which the NDP has taken the lead in many polls, with the Liberals in third. But many Liberals are also feeling that the fall election is shaping up as a referendum on whether Mr. Harper and the Conservatives stay or go – and that those in the latter camp will coalesce behind whichever party seems mostly likely to displace them.

And if that is the case, they fear, Mr. Trudeau cannot afford to go into the official campaign too far behind Mr. Mulcair. So they are trying to knock him back in the weeks before the writ is dropped.

On Monday, while Mr. Mulcair was launching a tour of southern Ontario ridings that have mostly been unthinkable long-shots for New Democrats, the Liberals sent out Adam Vaughan, a left-leaning downtown Toronto MP, to attack the NDP for policies that he said would help the wealthy, not the middle-class.

The party put out a press release in which Mr. Vaughan cited a collage of complaints, starting with the fact that the NDP opposes Mr. Trudeau’s proposal for middle-class tax breaks aimed at low- and middle-income families, and that it opposes the Liberals’ plan to hike taxes for more affluent Canadians. But it was rounded out with charges that Mr. Mulcair would re-open the Constitution (to try to abolish the Senate) and make it easier for Quebec to separate (by setting the threshold at 50 per cent plus one.)

Many Liberal candidates think it is about time for such a move. They have been watching the party’s poll numbers darken, along with some of their own election prospects. It is time “to raise questions” about Mr. Mulcair and the NDP, one said, such as whether their policies are really progressive, and what the party leader thinks of free trade. “Who would be their finance minister?” another candidate asked rhetorically. Expect Mr. Trudeau to be “increasingly feisty” in making these points.

Liberal ranks have experienced a loss of confidence. Some have also lost faith in the people around Mr. Trudeau, saying they should have done more to consolidate their gains when he was enjoying a wave of popularity, and questioning whether they have a clear plan to reverse the decline. Others see the drop in polls as the inevitable result of the non-stop barrage of Conservative attack ads that say Mr. Trudeau is not ready – and they think the real test will come when the campaign really heats up.

But many Liberals have another reason for wanting to hit the NDP now: the idea that Liberal and NDP voters are part of a pool that wants change and will turn to whomever they think can provide it.

Some Liberal candidates said they feel a palpable desire for change – not necessarily that Mr. Harper’s supporters have turned against him, but that those who were not really his supporters are more fed up. But that sentiment is more about Mr. Harper than the alternatives.

Of course, the goal of the Conservatives is to make those alternatives seem less palatable to voters.

For now, they are still mostly focused on Mr. Trudeau’s Liberals, who, after all, were historically the alternative, and are more centrist. But they have a plan: If that succeeds, they will attack the NDP as risky, too.

It is the Liberals who cannot afford to wait. Mr. Trudeau now leads a nervous party. It fears what the NDP long feared: being out of the race before a campaign officially begins. The Liberals have to try to cut Mr. Mulcair’s momentum back. And in doing so, they are underlining how much things have changed.

I think that the two reasons given for the "loss of confidence" in Liberal ranks ~ M Trudeau's team of advisors are more interested in their own policy goals than in the needs of the party, and the CPC's "Just Not Ready" attack ads are working ~  may both be correct. But I also believe that Canadians may be, at this moment, in a mood for real, change, not just the traditional change from Liberals to (briefly) Conservatives and then back, but a change from the traditional to the new: the New Democrats.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further to the above: Éric Grenier, of ThreeHundredEight.com, says, in a CBC report that the NDP continues to gain while, in his words: "Polls are starting to be more unanimous on the third place position of the Liberals (the two last surveys put them as low as 24 or 25 per cent), but it is up for debate as to whether the Conservatives are solidly in second or pushing the NDP for the lead."

So, there may be some doubt about how strong the NDP lead (over the CPC) is, but there is no doubt that the Liberals are the "third party" in Canadians' minds.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is a column by Lawrence Martin, with my comments inserted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-downside-of-us-style-elections/article25594717/

The downside of U.S.-style elections

LAWRENCE MARTIN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Tuesday, Jul. 21, 2015

They’re back. Fears about the Americanization of Canada – this time it’s our electoral system – are plaguing us again. You might have thought such anxieties would have been put to rest long ago. With the War of 1812, maybe. But they never go away.

Some of the fears have been exaggerated, some not. Whatever the case, they have had a major impact on Canadian politics. A century after the 1812 war, Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberal government was felled by the Americanization bogeyman. He lost the election of 1911 largely because his free-trade plank stoked fears of U.S. assimilation.

A half-century later, John Diefenbaker was so manic about U.S. overreach by the Kennedy administration that his Conservative government was toppled on related controversies.

On to the 1970s, when angst about U.S. cultural and economic encroachment prompted some of our best and brightest to form the Committee for an Independent Canada. Pierre Trudeau responded with cultural protections, the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the National Energy Plan. The latter destroyed the Liberal Party in Western Canada.

Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s free-trade pact with Uncle Sam created a national uproar. The Liberals ran ads in the 1988 election showing it would erase the border. But Mr. Mulroney handily won re-election. The border never did go the way of the dodo bird. If anything, it got bigger; the 9/11 catastrophe saw to that. We now need passports to get across.

Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s popularity had a lot to do with his giving a thumbs down to pressures from the White House to join in the invasion of Iraq.

Over time, Canadian culture has remained distinct from the American way, but challenges keep coming and the new one is serious enough. Our electoral system isn’t about to reach the same level of debasement as the one in the United States. But we’re clearly moving in that direction.

Examples? How many would you like?

Endless campaigns: Our new fixed-date election law has extended the length of federal campaigns. They used to be seven weeks and then we mercifully reduced them to five. But the new rules mean campaigns can start well in advance of such time frames. The whole idea of the permanent campaign, as in the United States, has moved into our vocabulary.  ✔ True, this is a fairly recent import from the USA

Money, money, money: The now-permissible early triggering of the official campaign means great gobs of more cash can be spent trying to buy votes. Reports say the Conservatives, who have a money advantage, will drop the writ perhaps as early as mid-August for the Oct. 19 vote. ✔ True, this is, also, a fairly recent import from the USA

Advertising schlock: U.S.-style attack ads used to be rare here, and pretty much limited to the formal election campaign. Now, as in the United States, they are used outside the writ period. They are far more plentiful and often more unsavoury.  ✔ True, this is an import from the USA, but it's an old one and has been used as far back as the Trudeau/Stanfield campaign

Restrictive voting laws: In some American states, identification requirements have the effect of making it more difficult for certain demographics to vote. Many argue that Canada’s new election law, the Citizen Voting Act, does the same.  ✔ True, this is also an import from the USA but it represents our shared sense of fear of the "other" in our midst

Dirty tricks: Lots of U.S.-style chicanery has made its way north of the border. A full listing of such by our current government would require a special newspaper supplement. ✘ Nonsense. This is as old as politics and we got it, as did the Americans, from 18th century Britain

Pork-barrelling: The United States is worse at this age-old practice of nest-feathering, but we’re getting closer (The Globe and Mail, for example, has revealed how the Conservatives funnelled 83 per cent of the federal infrastructure fund to projects in Tory-held ridings). ✘ Nonsense. We were past masters of pork barrel politics long before Confederation

Campaign debates: We’re moving to a more free-for-all format of privatized boutique debates, often seen in the U.S. primaries. ? Yes, maybe, but this might also be a good thing.

All said, our electoral system is being made less reputable, less regulated, more prone to U.S.-style abuses. The Americanization of our system is an increasing concern in other areas as well, such as gun-registry laws, which have become more relaxed, and a criminal justice system with a heavier emphasis on jailing.

Over the years, a couple hundred of them, many battles have been fought to sustain the Canadian way. More are required. More are to come.

 

[Kilo_302]

You know Kilo- you are right. I really hate it when the government gives meback some of mymoney. That is just about the worst thing any government can do....

Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-things-to-know-about-the-uccb-payments-impact-1.3161108

The UCCB goes to parents of minor children whether they pay tax or not — but it is also taxable, both federally and provincially. An Ontario parent earning $50,000, for example, pays income tax at a combined marginal rate of 31.15 per cent. So, with $720 of added income from the UCCB, an additional $224.28 would be clawed back as taxes next year.

Those two factors leave $158.22 a year per child for that Ontario parent, or an additional $13.18 a month net.

The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for childcare will never be as effective as an actual childcare program, with the economy of scale that it would provide. Not to mention the fact that this tax in some cases will take money from, for example, a single worker and give it to a wealthy family with a single child of 17. A service targeted to relieve lower and middle income Canadians of the cost of child care would be far more effective and far more direct.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All said, our electoral system is being made less reputable, less regulated, more prone to U.S.-style abuses. The Americanization of our system is an increasing concern in other areas as well, such as gun-registry laws, which have become more relaxed, X Nonsense. The gun-registry laws, brought in by the Liberals, were overbearing and unjust. It made criminals of law abiding citizens and allowed bureaucratic police appointees to, effectively, make up their own laws with total disregard for our justice system. The Conservatives are simply letting the pendulum swing back to a less adversarial and less costly system, while ensuring that the CFOs follow the law.

....and a criminal justice system with a heavier emphasis on jailing. X Nonsense. The previous laws, as written, left too much to interpretation by a left leaning attorneys and judiciary. Violent criminals were being appeased with 2-1 and 3-1 waiting times off of sentences. Low jails terms have done nothing to rehabilitate them, then they are dumped back on the street, many, many to reoffend the same laws. The Conservatives are trying to remedy that, including more use of the Violent Offender clause and imposing higher mandatory sentencing.

So there's no mistake, I borrowed Mr Campbell's response style because it's effective. The points put forward in this post are mine, not his.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-things-to-know-about-the-uccb-payments-impact-1.3161108

The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for childcare will never be as effective as an actual childcare program, with the economy of scale that it would provide.

If you can't afford to raise a family, you shouldn't have children.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-things-to-know-about-the-uccb-payments-impact-1.3161108

The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for childcare will never be as effective as an actual childcare program, with the economy of scale that it would provide. Not to mention the fact that this tax in some cases will take money from, for example, a single worker and give it to a wealthy family with a single child of 17. A service targeted to relieve lower and middle income Canadians of the cost of child care would be far more effective and far more direct.

It is difficult to remain polite to you. My wife and I choose to raise our own children- not to farm them out to government employees to be raised. This means my wife and I have both taken hits on what we could have earned (my wife far more than me). This also means that I deeply appreciate having my tax dollars returned to me (there- I have said it again. It was my money and I gave it to the government. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!

I do not care for the creation of another federal bureaucracy that will certainly intrude on areas of provincial concern; will certainly cost more than $ 5 billion dollars per years and will be certainly become a disfunctionsl mess (remember- I work for the federal government and see daily just how "good" it is at organizing things.

You like daycare. Fine. I don't. Please don't experiment on my kids with my money.

 

[Scott]

Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.

Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.

 

[Harrigan]

Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.

Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.

His dislike of Harper is no worse or stronger than the professed dislike of Trudeau on this site by many more posters (Mulcair less so).  Kilo just happens to be in the minority here.

Harrigan

 

[Scott]

His dislike of Harper is no worse or stronger than the professed dislike of Trudeau on this site by many more posters (Mulcair less so).  Kilo just happens to be in the minority here.

Harrigan

But I didn't ask you.

I was actually going to vote Liberal. My local candidate really made a good pitch to me as to why I should vote for him. He's since dropped out of the race because of some of the party's policies and I do not see a viable alternative.

 

[Kilo_302]

It is difficult to remain polite to you. My wife and I choose to raise our own children- not to farm them out to government employees to be raised. This means my wife and I have both taken hits on what we could have earned (my wife far more than me). This also means that I deeply appreciate having my tax dollars returned to me (there- I have said it again. It was my money and I gave it to the government. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!

I do not care for the creation of another federal bureaucracy that will certainly intrude on areas of provincial concern; will certainly cost more than $ 5 billion dollars per years and will be certainly become a disfunctionsl mess (remember- I work for the federal government and see daily just how "good" it is at organizing things.

You like daycare. Fine. I don't. Please don't experiment on my kids with my money.

Well the difficulty is mutual. Much of your above post is rhetoric and little more. There are numerous countries around the world that have national childcare programs, and these take many forms. We don't need to have federal employees run them, instead we could merely subsidize Canadian families to help PAY for daycare. Again, many options, some better for Canada than others. But ALL are better than nothing, or this tiny handout that we currently have. The economic spin off benefits are measurable and real. Not to mention the advantages that the children get in the most formative years of their lives. But you can believe what you want.

Here's a statement from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada on the matter:

http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/advocacy/EBBDEL_statement_e.pdf

Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.

Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.

I've said this numerous times, I am NOT a Liberal supporter and while I plan on voting for the NDP I am voting for my local MP because she does a great job in my riding, not because I have any love for Mulcair or the federal party. I have posted on this thread about Trudeau supporting C-51, which I think is a cynical and cowardly move. And I agree with all of you that becoming Prime Minister shouldn't be a coronation and that the Liberal Party is as arrogant as it is unimaginative.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

It is difficult to remain polite to you. My wife and I choose to raise our own children- not to farm them out to government employees to be raised. This means my wife and I have both taken hits on what we could have earned (my wife far more than me). This also means that I deeply appreciate having my tax dollars returned to me (there- I have said it again. It was my money and I gave it to the government. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!

I do not care for the creation of another federal bureaucracy that will certainly intrude on areas of provincial concern; will certainly cost more than $ 5 billion dollars per years and will be certainly become a disfunctionsl mess (remember- I work for the federal government and see daily just how "good" it is at organizing things.

You like daycare. Fine. I don't. Please don't experiment on my kids with my money.

SLOW CLAP!!!

 

[Infanteer]

Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...

We put the money in an RESP, so it is incredibly useful.  Go pound sand.

 

[Remius]

Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.

Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.

I suspect that if the Liberals or the NDP did certain things the CPC did, many here would also be up in arms.  But whatever.

To be honest, this is electioneering.  The announcement and delivery of this was carefully crafted and delivered at the right time to maximize vote getting.  Let's not kid ourselves.  This happens at every election.  The party in power has goodies to deliver and they'll do it when it suits them.  Being offended by it like it's some sort of aberration is being disingenuous. 

However that being said, I disagree with Kilo on his take that this is something the Conservatives would be against (ie a handout).  I believe that the CPC truly believes that how people spend their money to raise kids is their business.  So rather than create some national program they hand out money (likely not enough to make any real difference though but it is something) and let people decide.  I frankly like the approach but would have preferred more of a tax benefit or tax deductible thing instead. 

So while I agree with the CPC that parents should decide how to raise their kids, I'm under no illusions (and I think most people are not either) about the timing or the way they are delivering this.