- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
PPCLI Guy said:
It's not like the media has a professional obligation for neutrality that is part of their professional ethos... oh wait a minute...
See, sarcasm is fun in all cases!
Election 2015
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
It's not like the media has a professional obligation for neutrality that is part of their professional ethos... oh wait a minute...
See, sarcasm is fun in all cases!
- Reaction score
- 3,685
- Points
- 1,140
Bird_Gunner45 said:
Or that elected politicians have a professional obligation to actually respond to and respect the fourth and fifth estates as part of their duty of transparency to the electorate.
There is no excusing Mr Harper's treatment of the media, and by extension, the voters.
- Reaction score
- 4,310
- Points
- 1,160
It's getting closer to Labour Day and here is the latest poll from EKOS:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
PPCLI Guy said:
I disagree that elected politicians have an obligation to respond and respect the media or interact with the media in any way, shape, or form if they dont so choose. PM Harpers obligation is to advise her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II through the GG on matters relating to Canada as he sees fit, and to the Canadian people.
The media, on the other hand, I would suggest do not have a right to a response. Terry Melewski et al may feel that they have a right to an answer, but in reality, PM Harper is under the same obligation to answer a media outlets questions as any other Canadian. It certainly behooves politicians to answer questions of the media as the media have significant sway (and can be used to send a message, etc) but there is no obligation. The PM, if he wishes, can advise the GG verbally in person and speak to the Canadian people through press releases, TV/radio addresses, etc without question. The hurt feelings of journalists trying to make their names as "Ottawa insiders" notwithstanding, the rest is hogwash.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
E.R. Campbell said:
Alexander was hoist on his own petard for the performance the day before the boy's picture hit the front pages. He may be a smart guy, but he wasn't on form for that CBC piece.
I hope the Tarek Fatahs and Irshad Manjis can influence the Muslim Reformation I spoke of elsewhere.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I'll refrain from unparliamentary language in response to this, despite the temptation. The media are our representatives. They range from openly hostile to the government, to being unapolagetic syncophants (I though "bag-lickers" might be too strong?). You can choose to read it all and derive your own conclusions, read the stuff that supports your point of view, or read nothing (which is basically what you'd have if press releases were the only insight you get into the government of the day). Total government control of the message is available in a number of states of your choosing, but I doubt you'd want to live there.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Acorn said:
I'm glad you refrained, since I think you're wrong. To say that the government isn't obligated to speak to the media isn't to say that the media doesn't have a responsibility to present stories... in fact, they're paid to find stories where politicians may not want them to. The government cannot, and must not, restrict the rights of the journalists to find interesting stories to present to their readership and for editors to editorialize. However, to say that Stephen Harper is required to speak to the CBC is ludicrous. The media is required to maintain journalistic standards, so if they want to make the governments non comment by part of the story than that is a fair deal- something the CBC has done often.
- Reaction score
- 7,337
- Points
- 1,160
Bird_Gunner45 said:
I'm with Bird Gunner here.
"The Media" is an assortment of for profit organizations that happen to hire a variety of writers with varying opinions. Some of the outlets allow the writers freedom to voice their own opinions. Some tailor their output to the market to improve sales. Some tailor their output to further pet causes.
None of them are accredited members of the organs of governance.
They occasionally supply useful intelligence. Most often a small amount of that intelligence is used to generate many hours and many reams of commentary and conjecture which attracts eyeballs and permits the sale of advertising at elevated prices.
The freedom of the press is a great thing. It permits me to publish these opinions of mine here. Just as it permits Terry Milewski to publish his elsewhere. The fact that I publish mine for fun and enjoyment while he publishes his to pay the mortgage is immaterial.
The press has no special call on politicians. They can ask questions. I can ask questions. Whether there is a response or not, whether the response is useful or along the lines of "fuddle-duddle", "just watch me" or the one fingered salute is entirely up to the politician fielding the question and whether they give-a-dam.
- Reaction score
- 2,532
- Points
- 1,260
Nobody is REQUIRED to speak to the media. Having government ONLY communicate through canned messaging, though, can (at least potentially) lead to voters getting a less-than-full picture, as has been seen in other "tight message discipline" regimes ;D
In all seriousness, no matter where you get your information, you're almost never getting the whole story - who you believe is often based on whose info-triage you trust.
In all seriousness, no matter where you get your information, you're almost never getting the whole story - who you believe is often based on whose info-triage you trust.
- Reaction score
- 4,310
- Points
- 1,160
I think we, all of us, both overestimate and underestimate the media.
The media is not and never, ever was the "voice of the people." It is, as it always was a business ... sometimes, at its public service best, compelling, even brave, and it can change how we see and respond to the great issues of the day; at other times, when the media is at its worst, e.g. when Caitlyn Jenner "came out," celebrity gossip "owns" the daily news, blacking out the real news. Mostly the media is in the middle: trying to entice us to buy the paper or watch the broadcast by offering a mixture of information and titillation ~ infotainment.
Journalists, many of them, anyway, are honest, hard working people who really believe that they are public servants in the best and broadest sense of that word. They believe that an informed public is "better" ~ better at making the right decision for the greater good of all. (Of course a few journalists are nothing more than pompous, air-headed windbags, but that's the same in every profession or occupation, including the military, and I suspect the ratios are about the same in journalism, law, engineering, medicine and the military, too.) But the media is more than journalists, good and bad, it is a business with printing presses and TV studios and broadcast towers and satellites and bank loans and bonds and obligations to owners and shareholders ... and points of view.
Some journals (and broadcast networks, and, and, and ...) wear their points of view on their sleeves as badges of honour: see the Toronto Star's famous Atkinson Principles: Toronto Star people, including all the working journalists, are expected to "conform" in all they do at the paper. The CBC has its own Journalistic Standards and Practices which include Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Impartiality and Integrity. Your views and the Toronto Star's or CBC's views on how well they meet those standards might differ, and that's fair because they have points of view when they inform us ~ tell us the stories, as they see them ~ and we have points of view, too, when we process that information.
All journals, newspaper chains, radio and TV stations and networks share one common, sometimes overwhelming problem: income. The media is a business and it's not the easiest or most profitable of businesses. It costs money, big money, to publish The Economist or for the BBC to broadcast worldwide; it also costs money to run CFSO, a small, independent TV station in Cardston, Alberta and to publish the The Tyee in BC. The need to make money can, does and will effect the editorial decisions that media outlets, giant networks, prestigious journals and small, independent outlets alike, make. They will tell us what we want to hear: that's why, for example, Report on Business and the Financial Post have separate editorial boards from the Globe and Mail and the Financial Post, respectively: they want to make sure they tell their target audiences what they need to know, what they want to hear ... otherwise their subscribers and the people who put coins in the box every day will look (pay) somewhere else. That attitude leaks over to the "news" business, too ... that's why Caitlyn Jenner's "coming out" was more important than e.g. the fact that, in the USA, the Patriot Act expired but the congress passed a new, "better" (more draconian) law or that a cruise ship capsized in Asia killing hundreds or that over 1,000 people died of heat related causes in India: Caitlyn Jenner was more interesting to more people so the business of journalism informed us about what most of us (a plurality, anyway) wanted to hear.
So it is with political journalism, and so it has been since the 18th century, and probably farther back than that.
Stephen Harper is no different in how he "treats" the media and, therefore the public, than was e.g. John Fitzgerald Kennedy a half century earlier. Conservative media manipulation in Canada is no different in either detail or extent than what JFK's rich dad, Joseph P Kennedy did in the 1960 election campaign ... you can pretend what Harper is doing is new or worse, but your fooling yourself.
That the media, broadly and generally, is biased is undeniable. But, it is not all biased in any one direction: there are journalists and outlets to suit every political taste.
Prime Minister Harper is no fan of the media; he treats them with contempt and he doesn't try to sugarcoat it; and they, many, but not all, of the people in the media, respond in kind. It was, however the same for Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau, whose contempt for the media was nearly legendary, even as he courted them shamelessly. The "courting" worked and it is, I think, why some politicians do well with the media and others do not.
It all began, I think, around 1960, when BIG television was young and so was the "spin doctoring" business. TV gave the media a new, unprecedented, access to the homes of Americans and Canadians and the journalists became stars and they began to see themselves as a filter through which politicians needed to be seen. John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama and Pierre Trudeau were/are all excellent "users" of the media (and so were Eisenhower and St Laurent, in an earlier, less confrontational era) and the media responded well to their "use." Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George W Bush and, today, Stephen Harper do not "use" the media well, at all, and they pay a price.
I believe that our media is, mostly, of a low standard ~ not universally, there are plenty of good, hard working, fair journalists, the ones who want top inform us, in all parts of the media, including e.g. the CBC ~ I think too many, not all, journalists are poorly educated (not enough math or history or economics) and lazy (the latter attribute is why so many corporate press releases become "new stories") and I think that's why most of the Canadian media "spun" a tragic human interest story into a phoney political scandal. And that's not Stephen Harper's fault.
The media is not and never, ever was the "voice of the people." It is, as it always was a business ... sometimes, at its public service best, compelling, even brave, and it can change how we see and respond to the great issues of the day; at other times, when the media is at its worst, e.g. when Caitlyn Jenner "came out," celebrity gossip "owns" the daily news, blacking out the real news. Mostly the media is in the middle: trying to entice us to buy the paper or watch the broadcast by offering a mixture of information and titillation ~ infotainment.
Journalists, many of them, anyway, are honest, hard working people who really believe that they are public servants in the best and broadest sense of that word. They believe that an informed public is "better" ~ better at making the right decision for the greater good of all. (Of course a few journalists are nothing more than pompous, air-headed windbags, but that's the same in every profession or occupation, including the military, and I suspect the ratios are about the same in journalism, law, engineering, medicine and the military, too.) But the media is more than journalists, good and bad, it is a business with printing presses and TV studios and broadcast towers and satellites and bank loans and bonds and obligations to owners and shareholders ... and points of view.
Some journals (and broadcast networks, and, and, and ...) wear their points of view on their sleeves as badges of honour: see the Toronto Star's famous Atkinson Principles: Toronto Star people, including all the working journalists, are expected to "conform" in all they do at the paper. The CBC has its own Journalistic Standards and Practices which include Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Impartiality and Integrity. Your views and the Toronto Star's or CBC's views on how well they meet those standards might differ, and that's fair because they have points of view when they inform us ~ tell us the stories, as they see them ~ and we have points of view, too, when we process that information.
All journals, newspaper chains, radio and TV stations and networks share one common, sometimes overwhelming problem: income. The media is a business and it's not the easiest or most profitable of businesses. It costs money, big money, to publish The Economist or for the BBC to broadcast worldwide; it also costs money to run CFSO, a small, independent TV station in Cardston, Alberta and to publish the The Tyee in BC. The need to make money can, does and will effect the editorial decisions that media outlets, giant networks, prestigious journals and small, independent outlets alike, make. They will tell us what we want to hear: that's why, for example, Report on Business and the Financial Post have separate editorial boards from the Globe and Mail and the Financial Post, respectively: they want to make sure they tell their target audiences what they need to know, what they want to hear ... otherwise their subscribers and the people who put coins in the box every day will look (pay) somewhere else. That attitude leaks over to the "news" business, too ... that's why Caitlyn Jenner's "coming out" was more important than e.g. the fact that, in the USA, the Patriot Act expired but the congress passed a new, "better" (more draconian) law or that a cruise ship capsized in Asia killing hundreds or that over 1,000 people died of heat related causes in India: Caitlyn Jenner was more interesting to more people so the business of journalism informed us about what most of us (a plurality, anyway) wanted to hear.
So it is with political journalism, and so it has been since the 18th century, and probably farther back than that.
Stephen Harper is no different in how he "treats" the media and, therefore the public, than was e.g. John Fitzgerald Kennedy a half century earlier. Conservative media manipulation in Canada is no different in either detail or extent than what JFK's rich dad, Joseph P Kennedy did in the 1960 election campaign ... you can pretend what Harper is doing is new or worse, but your fooling yourself.
That the media, broadly and generally, is biased is undeniable. But, it is not all biased in any one direction: there are journalists and outlets to suit every political taste.
Prime Minister Harper is no fan of the media; he treats them with contempt and he doesn't try to sugarcoat it; and they, many, but not all, of the people in the media, respond in kind. It was, however the same for Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau, whose contempt for the media was nearly legendary, even as he courted them shamelessly. The "courting" worked and it is, I think, why some politicians do well with the media and others do not.
It all began, I think, around 1960, when BIG television was young and so was the "spin doctoring" business. TV gave the media a new, unprecedented, access to the homes of Americans and Canadians and the journalists became stars and they began to see themselves as a filter through which politicians needed to be seen. John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama and Pierre Trudeau were/are all excellent "users" of the media (and so were Eisenhower and St Laurent, in an earlier, less confrontational era) and the media responded well to their "use." Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George W Bush and, today, Stephen Harper do not "use" the media well, at all, and they pay a price.
I believe that our media is, mostly, of a low standard ~ not universally, there are plenty of good, hard working, fair journalists, the ones who want top inform us, in all parts of the media, including e.g. the CBC ~ I think too many, not all, journalists are poorly educated (not enough math or history or economics) and lazy (the latter attribute is why so many corporate press releases become "new stories") and I think that's why most of the Canadian media "spun" a tragic human interest story into a phoney political scandal. And that's not Stephen Harper's fault.
- Reaction score
- 4,843
- Points
- 1,060
Many, too many, of the MSM are in the game for one reason and one reason only. To make money for their boss. That's it and that's all.The premise that they should report the facts and let others make up their own minds disappeared in the 50's and 60's. Now they present spin, create controversy where there really is none and attempt to sway public opinion solely for their own gain. Journalists, for the most part, are only in it to increase their readership and thereby their paycheck.
Politicians are tired of being sandbagged, misquoted, smeared by lowlife hacks that call themselves journalists. If I want rumour, innuendo, spin and gossip, I'll read the National Enquirer.
Mr Alexander, who, if anyone decided to fact check his record, would find he's an outstanding Immigration Minister and has done more for immigrants than anyone in a long time. He's passionate about his job and compassionate towards his charges.
The lopsided, inaccurate, deceitful attack on him has become the standard of the MSM.
We need more of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzq57mux-_o
Many of these MSM parasites need to be put back in their place.
Mr Campbell beat me to it and was clearly more succinct in his delivery
Politicians are tired of being sandbagged, misquoted, smeared by lowlife hacks that call themselves journalists. If I want rumour, innuendo, spin and gossip, I'll read the National Enquirer.
Mr Alexander, who, if anyone decided to fact check his record, would find he's an outstanding Immigration Minister and has done more for immigrants than anyone in a long time. He's passionate about his job and compassionate towards his charges.
The lopsided, inaccurate, deceitful attack on him has become the standard of the MSM.
We need more of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzq57mux-_o
Many of these MSM parasites need to be put back in their place.
Mr Campbell beat me to it and was clearly more succinct in his delivery
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
recceguy said:
:goodpost:
When it comes to Mr. Alexander, it more or less "character assassination" in the media lately. You have to dig deeply to find out the real story. Many Syrian Canadians have attested to the work he has been doing. Unfortunately, that news is not making the MSM.
When I look at the recent statements from Thomas Mulcair on the refugee/migrant problem and military intervention against IS, I see him not as part of the solution, but part of the problem. Will the MSM clue into that; but more important, will Canadians clue in?
- Reaction score
- 7,337
- Points
- 1,160
And here are the reasons why Harper feels he can ignore the media (and may be able to get away with it)
CBC’s Audience Crisis: CBC TV Audience is Down 40%, Lowest in History
CBC’s Audience Crisis: CBC TV Audience is Down 40%, Lowest in History
One of the main factors behind the decline in the quality of the media is no doubt concentrated corporate ownership, and resulting commodification of the news. News programming has traditionally been a "money loser" at a network but was also largely seen as a necessary public service. Also, the more people watched a particular networks new shows, the more likely they would watch the rest of it's programming as well. But the transformation of news into revenue generators has meant that ad revenues have become more of a focus than quality.
As a public broadcaster, the CBC has also suffered in quality because it is trying to compete directly with private news networks who don't have the same public mandate to provide quality news programming. Just watch CBC programming from the 60s and 70s. It's definitely quaint and in many ways backward, but a lot of the analysis is far more complex and well thought out than it is now. I would also argue that in some ways the programming was far more critical of the status quo than it currently is (they aired Gwynne Dyer's "War" in its entirety for example).
The BBC is much the same, watch this debate from 1984 on the documentary "The 8th Day" (itself a quality piece of programming the likes of which we don't see today very often, in fact it's interesting to contrast the discussion of its ideas with our current climate change debacle).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0VcT-XWb7M
You have a broad swathe of political views represented, scientists, politicians in an uninterrupted hour long discussion (it could be more cerebral, but it's still news for normal people). Now compare that with the garbage the CBC, CTV, Global has foisted on us regarding most news of the day. I think Chris Alexander was fairly treated because he's often totally full of it, but the next day the discussion of the refugee situation and Canada's military role was reduced to two guests, both of whom agreed on every point except for one minor disagreement (they both used exactly that terminology) over the efficacy of increased air strikes. This is not a real debate, the spectrum here is razor thin. The CBC's analysis of our economic system is similarly stunted. If Amanda Lang is left wing I'm Ronald Reagan. In my opinion, we've had a narrowing of the definition of what is considered acceptable debate, while the depth of analysis has also gotten a lot shallower. This has mirrored what's happened in our politics. Remember Paul Orchard? Remember when everything wasn't black and white?
If the media's job is to "monitor the centers of power" as I believe it is, I would argue our media is NOT tough enough on our political leaders. That goes for Harper as it does Mulcair and Trudeau. It's easier to catch Harper in a lie now, because well, he's been in power for 10 years. But Mulcair's shift to the right, the Liberal Party's history of austerity (Harper only continued what they started) should all be fodder for any journalist who knows how to use Google. All of these guys are full of it, and they should be called out on it.
As a public broadcaster, the CBC has also suffered in quality because it is trying to compete directly with private news networks who don't have the same public mandate to provide quality news programming. Just watch CBC programming from the 60s and 70s. It's definitely quaint and in many ways backward, but a lot of the analysis is far more complex and well thought out than it is now. I would also argue that in some ways the programming was far more critical of the status quo than it currently is (they aired Gwynne Dyer's "War" in its entirety for example).
The BBC is much the same, watch this debate from 1984 on the documentary "The 8th Day" (itself a quality piece of programming the likes of which we don't see today very often, in fact it's interesting to contrast the discussion of its ideas with our current climate change debacle).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0VcT-XWb7M
You have a broad swathe of political views represented, scientists, politicians in an uninterrupted hour long discussion (it could be more cerebral, but it's still news for normal people). Now compare that with the garbage the CBC, CTV, Global has foisted on us regarding most news of the day. I think Chris Alexander was fairly treated because he's often totally full of it, but the next day the discussion of the refugee situation and Canada's military role was reduced to two guests, both of whom agreed on every point except for one minor disagreement (they both used exactly that terminology) over the efficacy of increased air strikes. This is not a real debate, the spectrum here is razor thin. The CBC's analysis of our economic system is similarly stunted. If Amanda Lang is left wing I'm Ronald Reagan. In my opinion, we've had a narrowing of the definition of what is considered acceptable debate, while the depth of analysis has also gotten a lot shallower. This has mirrored what's happened in our politics. Remember Paul Orchard? Remember when everything wasn't black and white?
If the media's job is to "monitor the centers of power" as I believe it is, I would argue our media is NOT tough enough on our political leaders. That goes for Harper as it does Mulcair and Trudeau. It's easier to catch Harper in a lie now, because well, he's been in power for 10 years. But Mulcair's shift to the right, the Liberal Party's history of austerity (Harper only continued what they started) should all be fodder for any journalist who knows how to use Google. All of these guys are full of it, and they should be called out on it.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Well, Mulcair has made one decision easy for me. Mulcair is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia. Sorry Thomas. Wrong answer.
Will the Canadian public clue in? Sadly, probably not.
His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia. Sorry Thomas. Wrong answer.
Will the Canadian public clue in? Sadly, probably not.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,975
- Points
- 1,040
Politicians have no duty or obligation to engage with non-professional media.
Non-professional media are all the media who do not conduct themselves professionally, irrespective of who they work for or how long they have been working. The ones working full time are occupational media, but not necessarily professional.
How would you recognize professional media? By observing whether they adhere to professional standards as rigorous as those observed by other professions: doctors, lawyers, clergy, soldiery, etc.
For example: a criminal defence lawyer provides the best possible defence of a client irrespective of a client's guilt. By analogy, a professional reporter reports a story as accurately as possible - no spin, no slant, no rush to judgement, no gratuitous adjectives and adverbs, none of the usual bullsh!t that graces most stories to serve political or aesthetic preferences.
There are very, very few truly professional people working in media today. Hence there are very, very few who should expect to have the right to ask questions and receive answers with any greater privilege than I have.
Non-professional media are all the media who do not conduct themselves professionally, irrespective of who they work for or how long they have been working. The ones working full time are occupational media, but not necessarily professional.
How would you recognize professional media? By observing whether they adhere to professional standards as rigorous as those observed by other professions: doctors, lawyers, clergy, soldiery, etc.
For example: a criminal defence lawyer provides the best possible defence of a client irrespective of a client's guilt. By analogy, a professional reporter reports a story as accurately as possible - no spin, no slant, no rush to judgement, no gratuitous adjectives and adverbs, none of the usual bullsh!t that graces most stories to serve political or aesthetic preferences.
There are very, very few truly professional people working in media today. Hence there are very, very few who should expect to have the right to ask questions and receive answers with any greater privilege than I have.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,975
- Points
- 1,040
Stuff coming up in the veteran's advocacy thread prompted me to bore you all with some perspective, but it affects all issues dependent on financing.
All numbers from gc.ca fiscal reference tables for 2014, year 2014, in millions of CAD. (This is about where money goes - expenditures only, no revenues.)
Note relative size of all transfers, and DND, with respect to "Other dept and agencies". The latter is basically everything the federal government does other than transfers and DND. DND and the rest of government operations are the parts that have been under spending restraint pressure. And if you think we should spend 2% of GDP on defence rather than 1.2% (or whatever it exactly is right now), you can gauge the size of the spending problem. You can also gauge the relative size of the various parties' social spending intentions and decide where VA benefits (which are social spending) might rank.
[NB: had a little trouble with table formatting - very professionally embarrassing. Never drink while ranting.]
All numbers from gc.ca fiscal reference tables for 2014, year 2014, in millions of CAD. (This is about where money goes - expenditures only, no revenues.)
Note relative size of all transfers, and DND, with respect to "Other dept and agencies". The latter is basically everything the federal government does other than transfers and DND. DND and the rest of government operations are the parts that have been under spending restraint pressure. And if you think we should spend 2% of GDP on defence rather than 1.2% (or whatever it exactly is right now), you can gauge the size of the spending problem. You can also gauge the relative size of the various parties' social spending intentions and decide where VA benefits (which are social spending) might rank.
| Transfers to other levels of government | |
| 42,758 | CHT/CST (health & social transfers) |
| 19,833 | "fiscal arrangements" (whatever those are) |
| 2,107 | Other |
| -4,223 | QC abatement (I knew we were sticking it to 'em. Go Harper, Go!) |
| Transfers to individuals | |
| 41,786 | OAS |
| 13,136 | Family allowance and children's benefits |
| 17,300 | EI benefits |
| Direct program expenses | |
| 36,698 | Other transfers (includes indiv and govt not included above) |
| 7,484 | Crown corp expenses |
| 21,511 | National defence |
| 50,217 | Other dept and agencies |
| ------- | |
| 248,607 | sum of above (aka "Program Expenses" in the Tables) |
| 28,220 | Public debt charges |
[NB: had a little trouble with table formatting - very professionally embarrassing. Never drink while ranting.]
Altair
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 715
- Points
- 1,110
In what will likely be a futile attempt to steer the conversation back to that election thing, new poll by ekos has the NDP slipping outside of quebec.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/
Liberals and conservatives picking up the gains.
Sadly,(for me) this only seems to help the conservatives. Curious as to what is hurting the NDP though.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/
Liberals and conservatives picking up the gains.
Sadly,(for me) this only seems to help the conservatives. Curious as to what is hurting the NDP though.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Altair said:
More than likely the second line on the site:
BALANCED BUDGET ISSUE MAY BE SORTING LIBERAL AND NDP FORTUNES IN REVERSE DIRECTIONS. The economy, not Duffy, hair, syrian refugees, veterans, etc is the real issue that will decide the fortunes of the parties and it appears from the way that the NDP has presented its platform that they were hoping that other issues would be a primary concern and the economy would be more of a secondary issue. According to the poll under the current voting intentions they were terribly mistaken.
Also, I suspect that the NDP received a lot of "blind support" upon their election win in Alberta and due to their overwhelming support in quebec. Certainly, their high level of support in Qc led to higher than usual polling numbers, which have influence in the ABC crowd. Perhaps we're seeing a shift towards the norm (the NDP 30.6 is almost exactly their 30.3 from 2011) as the lustre rubs off on them?
- Status
Similar threads
