Election 2015

[Kilo_302]

At the end of the day, our economy is still largely linked to that of the US, and the rest of the world. Especially since Ontario's recent governments have destroyed the manufacturing sector, making it harder for the rest of the country to drag itself out of a recession. When your largest population province is draining from transfer payments and not contributing to the success of the country, you're going to have a real hard time to balance a budget.

Of course this is the case, but we still can enact policies that can ameliorate the worst effects of a global recession. The destruction of the manufacturing sector in Ontario is actually largely due to NAFTA, which was a decision made at the federal level (with some input from the provinces).  NAFTA has made capital far more mobile, while labour must still observe international borders. So of course higher paid Canadian workers suffered, as did the manufacturing sector as a whole. This outcome was predicted by many, but the warnings were ignored.

 

[George Wallace]

Of course this is the case, but we still can enact policies that can ameliorate the worst effects of a global recession. The destruction of the manufacturing sector in Ontario is actually largely due to NAFTA, which was a decision made at the federal level (with some input from the provinces).  NAFTA has made capital far more mobile, while labour must still observe international borders. So of course higher paid Canadian workers suffered, as did the manufacturing sector as a whole. This outcome was predicted by many, but the warnings were ignored.

You are correct in one sense about NAFTA, and yet wrong at the same time.  I would not blame Ontario's current fiscal problems and the fact that industry is fleeing the province at an alarming rate on the Feds.  It is the Ontario Lieberals who have done that.  It is the Provincial Policies that are affecting us now.......as are the NDP policies in Alberta.  I would hestitate to lay the blame on the feet of the Federal Government and NAFTA, when the Provincial Governments still hold the regulatory powers over their jurisdictions. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

>You conveniently forgot to include in your quoted piece the suggestion that actually addresses that issue:  When you set up an MMP system, fill the PR portion in order of the number of votes they received in the actual election (of the non-winners in a riding, obviously).

Read more closely.  I pointed out that they can put hacks where they want - in particular, in ridings where the party is unlikely to win, but where there are a lot of the faithful who will vote for a bag of sand.

Regardless, that solution amounts to giving some ridings dual representation - yet another insult to basic representative democracy.  It's worse than a party list.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>LOL, the 60% refund they tried to get from Elections Canada would have been taxpayer money.

I know, but that was a side-effect, not the point of the financing scheme.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The Conservatives are stuck with their commitment to balance the budget - they will be shat on for whatever they do to hit the target, or shat on for letting it slide even if that is the best economic course of action.  So they might as well aim for the target.

We know that whatever the Conservatives are doing, the NDP and LPC want to tax more and spend more on social programs.

To prod the economy during a recession, the preferred tools are tax reductions and/or spending increases - preferably something useful, and generally excluding new social spending.

So if the opposition parties are crowing that we're entering a recession "because Harper" and their proposals are to raise taxes and social spending...

 

[Rifleman62]

It is a sure thing if national daycare comes in, the workers will, soon or later, go on strike and the country will shut down as all the parents scramble for babysitters.

SeaKingTacco:

Did we not learn anything from the residential school fiasco? Governments do not do childcare well, at all, ever.

I like the similarities between national daycare and the residential schools. Just think that in 2065 the government of the day will be facing endless multi billion dollar lawsuits filed by the millions of abused children (they were ALL abused in the daycare weren't they)  who would have voted for the party in the election campaign that promised the gimme.

And the CF-18 will still be flying using a green energy system, the military will be wearing one size fits all moccasins, and the Navy will be leasing gun less gunboats from Cuba and smoking weed on duty will be mandatory to keep all happy in the service.

 

[Harrigan]

>LOL, the 60% refund they tried to get from Elections Canada would have been taxpayer money.

I know, but that was a side-effect, not the point of the financing scheme.

Oh, so THAT type of fraud is OK then.....

 

[Brad Sallows]

Childcare subsidies are a major plank of the platforms of two of the parties, so maybe discussion thereof is on topic.

Here is what will happen with subsidies: providers will pay attention to how much new money is available, and increase rates to absorb the subsidies.  The number of available spaces won't change much.  People receiving subsidies will be right back where they started.  People not receiving subsidies will be paying more.  If this seems implausible to you, it is basically what happens with post-secondary education and most other situations in which more money chases the same amount of goods/services.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Conservatives are stuck with their commitment to balance the budget - they will be shat on for whatever they do to hit the target, or shat on for letting it slide even if that is the best economic course of action.  So they might as well aim for the target.

We know that whatever the Conservatives are doing, the NDP and LPC want to tax more and spend more on social programs.

To prod the economy during a recession, the preferred tools are tax reductions and/or spending increases - preferably something useful, and generally excluding new social spending.

So if the opposition parties are crowing that we're entering a recession "because Harper" and their proposals are to raise taxes and social spending...

One nit to pick: Not generally, Brad, anyone who has read Keynes with any amount of care will know that stimulus spending must never be for social programmes. The point of going into debt during a recession/depression is to spend money that can be turned off when the economy turns around ~ no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers believes that social programmes can be switched off when it's convenient for the government. They (social programmes) are entitlements and "sacred trusts," dontcha know ...

 

[Edward Campbell]

More (too early) poll results in this article in the Globe and Mail. Essentially: the CPC and NDP are tied for the lead and the Liberals remain mired in third. The analyst suggests that the NDP have a potential to capture as much as 50%+ of the popular vote ~ something that hasn't happened in Canada since 1984 (31 years ago). The same data suggests that the CPC's peak potential is about 40%, but 40 is better than 39.6 which was sufficient to win a comfortable majority in 2011.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, from the Canadian Press ~ "The New Democrats will look to form a coalition government with the federal Liberals if it means ousting Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives from power, says a prominent NDP MP ... Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen said that while winning a majority in this fall's federal election is still his party's goal, ultimately the number-one priority is toppling the Tories." ~ is a trap for the Liberals: it doesn't matter what they say, even if they say nothing at all, it is designed to make them look timid and indecisive.

If M Trudeau repeats his assertion that he will not join a coalition led by M Mulcair it makes him look afraid of the NDP leader.

If he jumps and changes his mind it will make him look weak and indecisive, but willing to do anything to get some power.

Ditto if he says nothing at all: weak and indecisive.

 

[Infanteer]

Admiral Ackbar would have saw this one coming...Trudeau needs to focus all firepower on the super star destroyer NDP.

 

[Edward Campbell]

... Admiral Ackbar would have saw this one coming...Trudeau needs to focus all firepower on the super star destroyer NDP.

But that's a trap, too  :nod:  if M Trudeau focuses too much attention/firepower on the Dippers then: a) he tells Canadians, explicitly, that he's the weak third choice and he's fighting for his life; and b) he gives the Conservatives more room to spend their (more) money attacking him and the LPC while he does their work (attacking the NDP) for them.  8)

That being said, it's the dilemma of all third parties: how to avoid losing your supporters to the fellow (or gal), Thomas Mulcair in this case, who is most likely to defeat the Great Satan sitting prime minister ~ strategic voting. For decades the Liberals encouraged progressive voters to abandon the NDP and vote Liberal to prevent a Conservative government, and it worked, too ... now the shoe is on the other foot and the NDP is telling Liberals to vote strategically, for the NDP, to defeat Prime Minister Harper.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is a pretty damning indictment of Prime Minister Harper's management of one of this (any) country's key responsibilities:

Conservatives lose conservative paper:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-are-the-tories-sound-managers-not-of-the-navy
Ottawa

 

[Remius]

This is a pretty damning indictment of Prime Minister Harper's management of one of this (any) country's key responsibilities:

Sadly those were some of the very reasons I voted FOR the CPC.  That and the whole arctic sovereignty bit.  None of it seems to be coming to fruition any time soon.  More and more I will have to find something else to vote FOR and so far the CPC isn't providing it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sadly those were some of the very reasons I voted FOR the CPC.  That and the whole arctic sovereignty bit.  None of it seems to be coming to fruition any time soon.  More and more I will have to find something else to vote FOR and so far the CPC isn't providing it.

I understand your dilemma, Crantor, and, despite being a CPC member, I share it. But, for now, at least, I remain convinced that the CPC is, at least, the least bad choice and, in my opinion, a not bad choice for this part of the 21st century. There are several things about which the CPC and I disagree on fundamental levels: defence and the whole "law and order" thing are just two of them. But there are other, important, policy issues where I think the CPC is, still, the best choice for Canadians.

I really want the Liberal Party of Canada to shake itself up and sort itself out ~ starting with getting a real, grownup leader ~ and then make itself ready, in 2019, to govern this country from the responsible, moderate, middle.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This, from the Canadian Press ~ "The New Democrats will look to form a coalition government with the federal Liberals if it means ousting Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives from power, says a prominent NDP MP ... Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen said that while winning a majority in this fall's federal election is still his party's goal, ultimately the number-one priority is toppling the Tories." ~ is a trap for the Liberals: it doesn't matter what they say, even if they say nothing at all, it is designed to make them look timid and indecisive.

If M Trudeau repeats his assertion that he will not join a coalition led by M Mulcair it makes him look afraid of the NDP leader.



If he jumps and changes his mind it will make him look weak and indecisive, but willing to do anything to get some power.

Ditto if he says nothing at all: weak and indecisive.

edited to correct quote gaffee
You notice it was a statement not by the leader of the NDP, so if fortune find for the NDP not to join up, they can say "it was just a opinion" It's also a trial balloon to gauge public reaction .

 

[Brad Sallows]

Trudeau doesn't have to respond to Cullen's coalition goad with a purely "will/won't" answer.  All Trudeau has to do is stick to his "no coalition" answer and qualify it by noting that the LPC may support a minority government of any other party on a vote-by-vote basis without being in a coalition, and will wait a year or two to see whether a coalition would add value.

After election day 2015, the CPC will still be the governing party.  If the NDP have a majority of seats, Game Over.  If the CPC and NDP each hold a minority, the NDP can manoeuvre to raise a confidence vote.  The LPC will probably have enough seats to decide the matter, then and on all future confidence votes irrespective of whether the CPC or NDP is the gover[n]ing party.

If Trudeau commits to a coalition with either the NDP or CPC, he kills the LPC.  He has to take up position as the kingmaker, hold it, and use it to extract concessions to show Canadians how useful Liberals are.

[Note that the LPC could freeze out the NDP for a very long time if Harper is satisfied working with a weak (rather than non-existent) LPC, and provided the LPC feels its prospects of long-term survival are greater working with the CPC and being seen to be centrist rather than working with the NDP - even if the NDP has a minority of seats greater than the CPC.  Wait 18-24 months, rebuild the LPC, pull the trigger on the CPC, and as soon as possible thereafter pull the trigger on the NDP and we go into another election.]

 

[Brad Sallows]

The question now isn't whether the CPC has done a poor job with defence capital acquisition.  The question is whether the LPC or NDP would move to do more of it or leave it where it is and pursue other aims.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is still too early to believe polls, and this may be an outlier, but, the Ottawa Citizen reports that "Conservatives open up lead heading into election period: poll."

The article reports on a "Mainstreet Research poll for Postmedia [which] suggests Harper and the Tories received a sharp boost in popularity as a result of the enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit ... Among decided voters, the Conservatives lead with 38 per cent support, followed by the NDP at 27 per cent and the Liberals at 25 per cent. The Green party is at six per cent (the Bloc Québécois is at four per cent). One in five voters (20 per cent) remains undecided."

Note two things, please: it's only one poll, and it was commissioned for a media organization that is, generally, pro-Conservative.