Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Mixed blessings in this Christmas Season ... journalist/commentator, and Army.ca member/contributor David Akin suggests that Prime Minister Harper is not thinking about turkey and mistletoe, he's pondering the warnings in this editorial in The Economist which ends by saying that:

    "The political scene is also different, and not in a good way. At the end of the 1990s most people in the rich world had enjoyed the
      fruits of the boom: median American wages rose by 7.7% in real terms in 1995-2000. Since 2007, by contrast, they have been flat in
      America, and have fallen in Britain and much of the euro zone. All over the rich world voters are already grumpy with their governments,
      as polling numbers and their willingness to vote for protest parties show. If they are squeezed next year discontent will turn to anger.
      The economics of 2015 may look similar to the late 1990s, but the politics will probably be rather worse."

On the brighter side, however, prime Minsiter Harper can look at this story from the Globe and Mail which says that:

    "The governing Conservative Party has taken a slim lead over the Liberals, according to a new poll that also found a “sizeable” improvement
      in public sentiment toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper."

 

[Rifleman62]

Can you see  Justin Trudeau on the "World's Stage" ?

I can't.

 

[a_majoor]

Can you see  Justin Trudeau on the "World's Stage" ?

I can't.

Indeed. If he is afraid to talk to Sun Media correspondents, one can only imagine how he thinks he is going to deal with Vladimir Putin and the like.

 

[Kilo_302]

The current government's biggest problem is themselves. Here's another example of their approach of ideology before evidence further alienating them from reality.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/30/greenspan-doob-stephen-harpers-scary-crime-bluster/

From the article:

"Some believe that offenders learn from imprisonment that “crime does not pay.” This, too, is wrong. Published research — some of it Canadian and produced by the federal government — demonstrates that imprisonment, if anything, increases the likelihood of reoffending. For example, a recent study of 10,000 Florida inmates released from prison demonstrated that they were more likely subsequently to reoffend (47% reoffended in 3 years) than an almost perfectly equivalent group of offenders who were lucky enough to be sentenced to probation (37% reoffended).

Crime and punishment issues are far too complex and far too serious to allow the national debate to be dominated by dishonest platforms and slogans. False promises are often convincing. Whether those offering them are dishonest or ignorant matters little: Conservative crime policies will not make Canadians safer."

It's great to "feel" things: Anger, fear, satisfaction that a criminal is being punished. But these things a rational policy do not make.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The current government's biggest problem is themselves. Here's another example of their approach of ideology before evidence further alienating them from reality.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/30/greenspan-doob-stephen-harpers-scary-crime-bluster/

From the article:

It's great to "feel" things: Anger, fear, satisfaction that a criminal is being punished. But these things a rational policy do not make.

There's only a 10% gap for re-offence between the incarcerated and probation groups. Of those two groups 53% and 63%, respectively don't reoffend at all. In my mind 10% is no more than a statistical fudge factor. Especially when they sight, "an almost perfectly equivalent group of offenders". They are either equivalent or not and if they're not, "perfectly'' is a useless word and should not be included. However it is, in order to lend credence to those that wish to squew things in their favour.

Besides which, it's based on the US penal system that can't even be remotely compared to ours.

Nice try though.

 

[Kilo_302]

There's only a 10% gap for re-offence between the incarcerated and probation groups. Of those two groups 53% and 63%, respectively don't reoffend at all. In my mind 10% is no more than a statistical fudge factor. Especially when they sight, "an almost perfectly equivalent group of offenders". They are either equivalent or not and if they're not, "perfectly'' is a useless word and should not be included. However it is, in order to lend credence to those that wish to squew things in their favour.

Besides which, it's based on the US penal system that can't even be remotely compared to ours.

Nice try though.

Well clearly that one stat is insufficient to 100% prove his point, and I did notice the language he used ("perfectly") but I don't have too much trouble believing an accomplished criminal lawyer and a professor emeritus of criminology at a respected university over the partisan hacks Harper has in his cabinet. The fact that the National Post saw no problem with publishing the article would seem to reinforce how out to lunch the Conservatives are. That paper isn't exactly known for its bleeding heart. I would add that this isn't a research paper, but an article. 

And I really don't have to try at all here. Did you read the first paragraph? When an elected official who is supposed to be familiar with the law and crime and punishment in general suggests that ALL convicted criminals be put in prison it's safe to say we're no longer dealing with well thought out policy, but an irrational ideological bent. But I suspect you're part of the audience this stuff is targeted at anyways (see my above reference to "feelings."). It's when it becomes official policy and starts costing Canada billions of dollars more than necessary that it becomes a real problem.

 

[Edward Campbell]

My personal opinion ~ worth exactly what you're paying for it ~ is that Conservative policy is set, in the main, by Stephen Harper and while Mr. Harper may have some ideological views, they are ALL overwhelmed by his one, overarching political goal: re-election.

We have seen that Mr Harper has a high degree of disdain for the 'extreme' views of the Conservative base: look at the CPC's record on e.g. abortion and it's relatively soft views on gun control. Mr Harper knows that he must win the 'moderate middle' and nothing else matters to him. If there is a "law and order" agenda it is because most, or, at least, a plurality of the 'moderate middle' wants it.

You are quite wrong to consider ideology when assessing Stephen Harper's political strategy: ideology is completely irrelevant. The Liberals and, especially, the NDP are far more ideological than is the CPC under Stephen Harper. There are many, many ideologues in the CPC ~ but they are (as they should be) political and policy eunuchs.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

If there is a "law and order" agenda it is because most, or, at least, a plurality of the 'moderate middle' wants it.

So true. I remember going back home to Sask. and talking to friends/family who were true, blue Knee-Dippers and they were just as likely to believe in the "lock-'em-up-and-through-away-the-key" philosophy as any Conservative.

You are quite wrong to consider ideology when assessing Stephen Harper's political strategy: ideology is completely irrelevant. The Liberals and, especially, the NDP are far more ideological than is the CPC under Stephen Harper. There are many, many ideologues in the CPC ~ but they are (as they should be) political and policy eunuchs.

The left likes to talk about the "right-wing Conservative" ideology, or label the Conservatives of being "ideologues" as if was something evil, but ideology is nothing more more "than a system of beliefs" which all political parties have. And, like you say, the Liberals/NDP/Greens are just as ideological driven as the CPC; perfect example is Trudeau the Youngers diktat that all new members must be pro-abortion. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well clearly that one stat is insufficient to 100% prove his point, and I did notice the language he used ("perfectly") but I don't have too much trouble believing an accomplished criminal lawyer and a professor emeritus of criminology at a respected university over the partisan hacks Harper has in his cabinet. The fact that the National Post saw no problem with publishing the article would seem to reinforce how out to lunch the Conservatives are. That paper isn't exactly known for its bleeding heart. I would add that this isn't a research paper, but an article. 

And I really don't have to try at all here. Did you read the first paragraph? When an elected official who is supposed to be familiar with the law and crime and punishment in general suggests that ALL convicted criminals be put in prison it's safe to say we're no longer dealing with well thought out policy, but an irrational ideological bent. But I suspect you're part of the audience this stuff is targeted at anyways (see my above reference to "feelings."). It's when it becomes official policy and starts costing Canada billions of dollars more than necessary that it becomes a real problem.

There it is. Now I remember why you're on ignore.

First you throw out a baseless study and when it's objectively scrutinized and counterpointed, you regress to your "anti Harper. Harper is Satan" rhetoric.
Then to try top it off, your resort to ad hominem attacks against myself, personally, because I dared to try discuss a misleading study, based on flawed statistics, which has nothing whatsoever to do with our justice system or the application thereof.


Sooooooooooo, nothing has really changed as far as your posts or "boogey man in the closet" drivel that you proffer as your antidote to smite the real, existing world, in exchange for your fantasy Utopian world led by a Shiny Pony.

Back on Ignore.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Given the Liberals' legacy as bearers of the "decade of darkness" mantle, I don't see how a bit of window dressing will help ....

Justin Trudeau's Liberals are hoping to capitalize on the cracks that have appeared in the Conservatives' promilitary image, especially when it comes to veterans.

To accomplish that goal, the Liberals will have a number of former and currently serving military members running under their banner, including retired lieutenant general Andrew Leslie and Lt.-Col. Harjit Sajjan, the first Sikh to command a Canadian army regiment.

"I would suspect we represent a bit of a threat to Mr. Harper's ground, which he's tried to claim as being supportive of the Canadian Forces and veterans," Leslie said. "Of course, we don't actually have to say or do anything. The Conservatives are digging themselves into all sorts of trouble."

The question is whether the Liberals can escape the party's own checkered past and redefine its relationship with the military to take advantage of what appears to be growing discontent with the Conservatives among many of those who have served in uniform ....

 

[Remius]

Two stories that I think will have an impact on this year's election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/little-chance-of-federal-budget-surplus-in-2014-2015-td-report-1.2899104

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/alberta-recession-likely-in-2015-conference-board-of-canada-says-1.2186042

Of course this assumes that oil prices might not go back up.  If they don't, I'm not sure how the government will get to a surplus without significant cuts (more significant than what they've already done).

This may be more of a reason for an earlier election than anything Duffy, Isis or Justin Trudeau can offer.

 

[a_majoor]

Since Canada is still in better shape than most others, the fall in oil prices is a setback, but not a disaster (like in Russia or Venesuela). Still, this will take a lot of spin doctoring, considering most of the electorate will only look at the issues "about a month after the election" (as per a clear minded poster right here on Army.ca, whose name escapes me right now).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Since Canada is still in better shape than most others, the fall in oil prices is a setback, but not a disaster (like in Russia or Venesuela). Still, this will take a lot of spin doctoring, considering most of the electorate will only look at the issues "about a month after the election" (as per a clear minded poster right here on Army.ca, whose name escapes me right now).

Was it me? C'mon, don't be shy, tell me it was me. You know it was. Right? Right? Stop the suspense for everyone. Pick me! You know I'm right. C'mon whadda you say? :bowing:

 

[Remius]

Since Canada is still in better shape than most others, the fall in oil prices is a setback, but not a disaster (like in Russia or Venesuela). Still, this will take a lot of spin doctoring, considering most of the electorate will only look at the issues "about a month after the election" (as per a clear minded poster right here on Army.ca, whose name escapes me right now).

I think we can all agree that the economy is what will truly matter to electors.  The issue isn't whether this is a disaster or not (it isn't)it is more about the government stating it will balance the budget.  It is the primary part of their platform. 

My concern is that the party has started making promises that it might not be able to afford.  Granted no one could have predicted the drop in oil prices so it isn't so much about blaming them but more about the challenge of maintaining their line without compromising their position with spending initiatives aimed at winning the election.

This does have the potential to possibly trigger an earlier election or defining one that may come later.  But as I stated, oil prices could go back up.  Could an increase in the manufacturing sector be enough of a silver lining?

 

[YZT580]

This does have the potential to possibly trigger an earlier election or defining one that may come later.  But as I stated, oil prices could go back up.  Could an increase in the manufacturing sector be enough of a silver lining?

Not so much of a problem as long as the prices of a latte in Toronto don't go up.  Seriously though, people don't care if we run a deficit as long as it doesn't touch them directly and if industry is hiring or jobs feel secure then the voters will pay little attention to a continued short term deficit.  If you want proof look no further than the last Ontario provincial election. 

 

[a_majoor]

Was it me? C'mon, don't be shy, tell me it was me. You know it was. Right? Right? Stop the suspense for everyone. Pick me! You know I'm right. C'mon whadda you say? :bowing:

Recce, it sure sounds like you, and since I wasn't able to find the post with the quote I will certainly give you the richly deserved honours...

 

[ballz]

The effect of the drop in oil prices on budgets (Alberta, Nfld, the Feds, others I'm sure) really drives home how our shitty of an idea it is for us to depend so heavily on a resource-based economy.

 

[Jed]

Too me this big drop in oil prices drastically effecting the Federal and some provincial budgets drive home the message that North America needs to become energy independent.

We do not want the Saudis screwing with our Canadian or American economies when ever the urge hits the House of Saud.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The problem with your proposal is being demonstrated right now- oil is a fungible product. It's price is set on the world market. The only way to decouple the North American oil market from the world oil market would be to for Canada and the U.S. to nationalize their oil and gas industries. Not going to happen.

I would suggest this round of price cuts by the Saudis (I think that there are other factors involved in the previous price of oil. The end of quantitative easing , followed immediately by oil prices starting to fall is a bit too to convenient. I would suggest that oil was being used as a hedge and that hedging has disappeared) will last until fall. At that point, US and Canadian output should be dropping and many of the weaker North American companies will have either gone bankrupt or maybe even acquired by OPEC sovereign wealth funds. From there, the prices should start to rise again to ? (Your guess is as good as mine)

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think we can all agree that the economy is what will truly matter to electors. 

Curious - will the the larger "economy" concerns outweigh the "holy mackeral, lookit how cheap gas is!"?  I know where I live, I can't remember the last time I've seen buck-a-litre gas here (the average price over the past few days).  Wonder if seeing that day-to-day will be a hard message to get over with a broader, "what's good for the SYSTEM" issue?