• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
There is one fascinating infographic in the Mainstreet Research poll, just above:

         
poll_economy_web.jpg


Assume, juts for a moment, that it's correct (it might be good, being based on a 5,000+ person survey), then two things favour the Tories:

    1. Almost half of Canadians think a balanced budget is "Very Important" ~ but that measn the CPC must damp down any and all speculation, like that from the PBO, suggesting that the budget will be in deficit, again; and

    2. Prime Minister Harper is, still, Canadians' first choice to be our "economic manager."
 
Brad Sallows said:
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.]

Ah, but that's what YOU would do if you were leader of the LPC, Brad.

I have the feeling that both the NDP and CPC are expecting the Young Dauphin to simply open his mouth and finish the job for them....
 
Brad Sallows said:
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.]

But Brad, that is what you would do as leader of the LPC.

I'm 99% certain the NDP and CPC are simply waiting for the Young Dauphin to open his mouth and finishe the job for them....
 
Does anyone seriously believe that the "Natural Governing Party" would be willing to be the junior member of a coalition?
 
ModlrMike said:
Does anyone seriously believe that the "Natural Governing Party" would be willing to be the junior member of a coalition?

Their party ego won't let them...where as the NDP (provincial, in Ontario, pre-1990) did so, but were quite smart about it, and didn't call it a coalition, per se, but rather an 'agreement' with the LPO, and decided to not press for any cabinet positions, but rather remain the Opposition.  I'm not sure the LPC braintrust would ever think such a thing to be entertained.
 
The Liberal Party has absolutely nothing to gain in a coalition with the NDP.  Being a junior partner to the NDP might signal their irrelevance to voters.  The next leader of the Liberals might actually be electable and it will be business as usual.

I see the Media Party is whining about Harper's possible $1 billion deficit.  I wonder how they like the looks of Alberta's NDP and their $8? billion deficit.  Alberta's NDP aren't even going to present a budget until after the federal election so as not to spook Angry Tom's supporters.  What is that 9 months late?  The economy is dying out here.  Oil prices are one thing but the uncertainty is brutal.
 
Brad Sallows said:
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.

you are right - happened in BC when the government gave everyone money for the period the teachers were on strike.  Daycares were telling people that it was for the daycare and they had to give it to them on top of the amounts they were already paying.  People did too because they were afraid if they refused they would lose their spots.

 
saw an interview this morning and he did state not interested in forming the coalition as the two parties are too far apart on their plans.

He also mentioned how Mulcair said one thing to the french when in Quebec and his party members were saying different a thing in the rest of Canada in english.
 
The politics of cynicism or cynical politics ...

... in this article, by Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-all-good-liberals-should-hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-eve-adams
crop_20562474919.jpg

All good Liberals should hold their nose and vote for Eve Adams

Scott Reid

Published on: July 24, 2015

Thank God I can’t vote.

This weekend, Liberal party members in the Toronto riding of Eglinton-Lawrence will meet to pick the person who will stand as their candidate in this October’s election. It’s a rare nomination meeting certain to capture national as well as local attention. That’s because the most prominent candidate is former Conservative MP and dead ringer for the girl-you-couldn’t-stand-in-high-school Eve Adams. She will be supported by her trusty life partner and human PDA machine Dmitri Soudas. He spent his entire adult life burying bodies for Stephen Harper. Now he wants to dig a hole for his former boss.

If there’s a word that accurately captures the contribution this pair has made to Canadian politics it would surely be “yuck.” She has been a thoroughly unimpressive Parliamentarian with a talent for looking wooden and irritating her colleagues with unrestrained  ambition. After being stripped of her Conservative Party credentials, she suddenly realized that within her bosom a Liberal heart was beating. On a dime, she renounced the team she had been publicly desperate to remain part of and declared her commitment to the cause of Harper’s defeat as a Liberal candidate.

To those who argue that plenty of good people switch parties, it hardly bears saying that Adams is no Churchill. There was no detectable point of principle behind her defection. She struggled with no specific policy issue or ever expressed any discomfort with the values of the Harper government. In fact, she left only after the Conservatives made it crystal clear that she was unwanted. Her move to the opposition was less a floor-crossing than a bid for asylum.

Still, she practically shines when compared to her partner. For years, Soudas was the guy Harper turned to for jobs the prime minister considered ugly and undignified – such as working with the parliamentary press gallery. Time and again, the most powerful man in Canada picked Soudas to take on prominent positions and exercise enormous power. He raised up this junior aide and made him a player of unavoidable importance. Soudas repaid these repeated acts of confidence with outright betrayal. Told he could not use his position as National Director of the Conservative Party to advance the fortunes of Adams’ nomination, he did exactly that. Clumsily and unapologetically he broke the promises he made to his lifelong patron and is now working against Harper’s re-election.

With all that in mind, you might think that Liberals in Eglinton-Lawrence have an easy job of things this weekend. Just cast their votes for Adams’ opponent and give the boot to this unappealing pair of carpetbaggers. Except it’s not quite that simple.

Eve Adams didn’t just appeal for entry into the Liberal Party. Her application was personally received by the leader. Trudeau sat with Adams on national TV. For whatever reason, it was determined that she was a catch – and that the sight of turncoat Soudas might rattle some frayed nerves in the Harper PMO. Who knows, maybe it did.

But now the Liberals have to decide what to do with her. Although the nomination is technically open, early signals clearly identified Adams as the preferred choice. Local Liberals were left to assume that they should choke back their disgust and support Adams and Soudas. All things considered, that’s probably what they should still do.

This notion will strike some as incomprehensible but politics is a team sport and the party leader heads that team. Occasionally voting for something or someone you dislike because the leader wants it comes with the territory. Such discipline is vital in politics. It enables the reliable functioning of our big-tent, brokerage party system. And that system has served Canada well by forging stability in spite of pronounced regional, linguistic and cultural tensions.

It could be argued that voting for or against Adams won’t cause Canada to disintegrate or destroy the party system. On balance, that’s probably correct. But dumping her would almost certainly be seen as a rebuff to Trudeau just as he prepares for the coming election. Even with recent signals that the party brass is genuinely agnostic about the outcome – that they wouldn’t interpret her defeat as a slight (notice that former interim leader Bob Rae has endorsed Adams’ opponent) – the question of how her refusal would play out in the current political climate must be considered.

Media and political observers would rush to replay TV footage of Trudeau welcoming Adams and contrast it with her rejection by the rank and file. Fair or not, her defeat would be used against Trudeau. It’s a headache he hardly needs in the midst of his current labours to pull the Liberals out of third spot.

Many of those eligible to vote in the nomination will conclude, reluctantly, that helping their leader is more important than harming Harper’s deserters. Ironically, Adams and Soudas may become the beneficiary of the sort of loyalty that neither of them proved capable of showing Harper. We are reminded again that politics is a funny old business.

I live in Eglinton-Lawrence and once was a member of the riding association. My phone has rung repeatedly with appeals to renew my standing and come out to vote. But the commentary I provide to the Citizen and other media keeps me from that kind of partisan involvement these days. Phew. Because if I had to vote, I would struggle mightily. The temptation to put an end to these two would be almost overpowering. But ultimately, my instinct to support the party leader at this sensitive time – even if the leader’s operation no longer feels it’s mandatory – would probably win out. I would end up voting for Adams.

So, again, thank God I can’t vote.

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


Of course, there is no principled reason for any thinking person to vote for Ms Adams: she's ... well, she's pretty much a disgraced has been. BUT: the party leader (Justin Trudeau) and his "brain trust" (Gerald Butts) think that maybe, just maybe, Ms Adams can knock off Finance Minister Joe Oliver and so they are asking Liberals to pick a disgraceful bit of used goods to try to unseat a pretty good MP and minister.  :facepalm:
 
A question out of the blue.  The Conservative attack ads on Trudeau appear to be working.  What do they have in store for Mulcair once the writ has been dropped?  It must be something good to account for the Conservative patience.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The politics of cynicism or cynical politics ...

... in this article, by Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-all-good-liberals-should-hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-eve-adams

Of course, there is no principled reason for any thinking person to vote for Ms Adams: she's ... well, she's pretty much a disgraced has been. BUT: the party leader (Justin Trudeau) and his "brain trust" (Gerald Butts) think that maybe, just maybe, Ms Adams can knock off Finance Minister Joe Oliver and so they are asking Liberals to pick a disgraceful bit of used goods to try to unseat a pretty good MP and minister.  :facepalm:


More on this ... Bob Rae endorses a "good Liberal," Marco Mendicino, who is running against Eve Adams for the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence.
 
Rocky Mountains said:
A question out of the blue.  The Conservative attack ads on Trudeau appear to be working.  What do they have in store for Mulcair once the writ has been dropped?  It must be something good to account for the Conservative patience.

They are working because they are almost always on and have been for a while.  But...I think it has worked too well, driving some voters to Mr. mulcair.  I'm not sure there will be enough time to have the same impact on him.
 
I think (hope) that the "Just Not Ready" ads have defined M Trudeau, and that his Liberals will be a dismal third in the upcoming elections. Then I hope the Liberals will take some time to reflect on their core values (and on who they need to be their next leader) so that they can renew themselves and, once again, be a good, centrist government in waiting when either the CPC or the NDP need replacing.
 
The attack ads work because like all good propaganda and PSYOPS, it is built around a kernel of truth. All you need to do is review the words that have come out of the Young Dauphin's mouth during his tenure as leader and the ads just write themselves.

Dealing with Tom Mulcair is much trickier. The CPC need the NDP to move more to the right and eliminate any space for the Liberals, so attacking Mr Mulcair would be counterproductive from the strategic point of view. As well, Mr Mulcair has been an effective and hard working parliamentarian and a capable leader of his party, and has no obvious baggage (remember "Just Visiting?"), so creating a personalized attack campaign is much more difficult.

I suspect the strategic vision of the CPC is to let the Young Dauphin expend LPC time, energy and resources agains the NDP, and that the CPC "trusts" there are enough die hard Liberal supporters who would vote for a potted plant if it was the LPC candidate (see the bit about Eve Adams upthread) to split the Progressive/Left vote and come up the middle. The Prime Minister will let the others duke it out in "debates" and then move in for the kill once some vital issue or event provides the opening.

Now we all should know that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and Edward always reminds us that a week is "a long time" in politics, but the Prime Minister's team has been pretty effective in building a party and moving from opposition to minority to majority government, so I would not be betting against them quite yet.....
 
There are those who like to point out Mr. Mulcair's French citizenship as a concern...
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The politics of cynicism or cynical politics ...

... in this article, by Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-all-good-liberals-should-hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-eve-adams

Of course, there is no principled reason for any thinking person to vote for Ms Adams: she's ... well, she's pretty much a disgraced has been. BUT: the party leader (Justin Trudeau) and his "brain trust" (Gerald Butts) think that maybe, just maybe, Ms Adams can knock off Finance Minister Joe Oliver and so they are asking Liberals to pick a disgraceful bit of used goods to try to unseat a pretty good MP and minister.  :facepalm:

Personally I don't think this has anything to do with Adams and everything to do with Soudas.  Not to say that the following has actually happened, but I can certainly picture a scenario when he has said to the Liberal Party "I have the goods you want - but the price for access is that Eve gets the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence" 

Kind of reminds me of the old "Let's Make a Deal" gameshow.  He represents "Door Number Three", behind which could be the golden key to sinking Harper should there be some real nasty skeletons that Soudas will reveal once Adams is confirmed as a candidate.  Or, there is a donkey. 

I suspect Soudas knows the Liberals really want to see what is behind Door Number Three, and he is parlaying that desire into a candidacy for his fiancée.  Whether there really is any insider knowledge that is worth the angst is probably doubtful, but if the Liberals are going to take the risk, they'll have to take the consequences too.
 
Agreed, Harrigan, but, as you can see from this, not all Liberals are convinced.

I wonder if (hope that) we are seeing the first sings of another Liberal split. Might it be, this time, maybe, between the principled Liberals and the power at any price Liberals?

E.R. Campbell said:
More on this ... Bob Rae endorses a "good Liberal," Marco Mendicino, who is running against Eve Adams for the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence.


Edited to add: and see this, also. It appears that both sides have strong support. Oh, my goodness, I love political civil wars, especially Liberal ones.
 
Harrigan said:
Personally I don't think this has anything to do with Adams and everything to do with Soudas.  Not to say that the following has actually happened, but I can certainly picture a scenario when he has said to the Liberal Party "I have the goods you want - but the price for access is that Eve gets the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence" 

Kind of reminds me of the old "Let's Make a Deal" gameshow.  He represents "Door Number Three", behind which could be the golden key to sinking Harper should there be some real nasty skeletons that Soudas will reveal once Adams is confirmed as a candidate.  Or, there is a donkey. 

I suspect Soudas knows the Liberals really want to see what is behind Door Number Three, and he is parlaying that desire into a candidacy for his fiancée.  Whether there really is any insider knowledge that is worth the angst is probably doubtful, but if the Liberals are going to take the risk, they'll have to take the consequences too.


I wonder if the CPC administrative hierarchy was smart enough to apply the sort of confidentiality agreement that was imposed on MP's political staffs to Mr Soudas ...
 
E.R. Campbell said:
I wonder if the CPC administrative hierarchy was smart enough to apply the sort of confidentiality agreement that was imposed on MP's political staffs to Mr Soudas ...

I guess it depends on what the information is.  The consequences of breaching that "agreement", which seems designed specifically to cover up stuff, isn't all that dire (termination of employment, pay back termination pay, etc).  I don't imagine Soudas is too worried about that.  If the "goods" he has is a legal issue, he is covered there too.  I think what the Liberals need to be concerned about is that this guy is a mercenary.  He is willing to backstab the CPC, so they are forewarned about what he would be willing to do to them should he feel wronged. 

The flipside to the "Let's Make a Deal" argument, though, is that unless he has given them a taste of what he knows, they wouldn't even be considering it. 

However, my money is on donkey!  ;D

Harrigan

P.S. I think the big winner in all this (again) is the NDP, who have absolutely nothing to lose no matter what way the vote goes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top