Election 2015

[Bird_Gunner45]

This slide would seem to indicate why the LPC/NDP are so keen on changing the first past the poll voting system into a preferential system... it essentially makes them kingmakers....

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

	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.]

:bravo: :goodpost:  Excellent, Brad, and thank you for that important information ... facts, not fictions; facts around which (some) voters can wrap their minds, not their emotions.

It's good to see that the level of interest on the public debt continues to decline. It reached historic peacetime highs during the Mulroney years as the impact of  Prime Minister Trudeau's social spending began to be felt. Prime Minister Chrétien began to cut back and a rapidly growing (hot) economy helped a lot. Prime Minister Harper has been just as restrained, despite having (for both acceptable economic (Keynsian) and force majeure political reasons) a massive stimulus programme in 2008-11. Over the past 55 years, since 1960, our public debt has ranged from being about 20% of GDP (1962), when the full effects of the St Laurent years of high growth and (relatively) moderate spending were being felt, to a high of nearly 65% (1997) when the full effects of the Trudeau entitlement (social) projects were being felt. It is, now, somewhere around 37.5% and falling, slowly. What is a "good" level of public debt in the 21st century? My guess: 20-35% of GDP is easily manageable and indicates that governments are investing prudently, especially in recessions.

I am one of those who favours a substantial increase in defence spending ~ I think 2% of GDP is both a reasonable and responsible goal, even as I appreciate that, absent a clear, well understood threat, it is politically impossible ~ and I believe that a properly organized DND (one that has (again) e.g. a ship design capability (it used to be called the Naval Drawing Office)) could spend money on stimulus if it had, in the HQ desk drawers, "shovel ready" projects (large (e.g. warships) and small (e.g. reserve armoury and training area upgrades)) that could spend money, fairly quickly ~ same year to within 36 months ~ in Canada. (That was something that existed in the 1960s and 70s ~ pre 1975, for certain ~ and staff officers in DNR, DLR, DAR and the like and in ADM(Mat) had to keep a list with costs and timelines updated.)

I also understand that we will (almost) never cancel major social programmes. Paul Dewar of the NDP has posted this on his Facebook page:

         

          ... I'm tempted to use the punchline form one of the lawyer jokes and say, "It's a good start," but that would be rude. But it is a good start and a fiscally prudent
              (responsible) government should cut more agencies like that.

Because of my views on the public debt and on "how" to spend the money governments have I cannot and will not support either M Mulcair or M Trudeau ... that's based on the "facts on the ground," which you have presented, and their promises on the really important economic issues.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Yeah, Rosemary Barton gave him a (well deserved, IMHO) kick in the nuts yesterday.

While there certainly could have been (and continue to be) more coverage of Syria, I am unsure our limited participation in it and the limited effects it has on Canada would justify it in the Canadian media.  What Chris Alexander was trying to say was that the media wasn't covering it as a safety/security issue - thus not covering it in a way which fits the CPC narrative.

Sorry buds, you can't just throw up a campaign slogan on the side of your campaign bus and expect apathetic voters to buy it.  You are going to have to work for it.

More, in the way of an unflattering portrait of Chris Alexander, in this article from long time Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-chris-alexander-just-the-latest-example-of-how-politics-debases-even-the-best-of-us

Chris Alexander just the latest example of how politics debases even the best of us

Scott Reid

Published on: September 4, 2015

What ever happened to Chris Alexander?

The once promising boy-wonder of the Canadian foreign service has become a cautionary tale about what happens to those who fall in with the wrong crowd. It’s a remarkable story not only because of his obvious promise but because, in this instance, the wrong crowd happens to be the hard-cases who run our country’s governing party.

Blessed with Jimmy Stewart posture and an accompanying aw-shucks charm, the Oxford-educated Alexander won early attention as Canada’s first resident Ambassador to Afghanistan in 2003. He was only 34 years old. After an additional stint in the war-ravaged country as a UN Special Representative, earning him deserved plaudits at home and abroad, he returned to Canada to take up the higher calling of public office, winning his way into Parliament in the 2011 election. Two years later he was named Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

It’s a story that provokes comparisons to the likes of Lester B. Pearson, almost smacking of an individual manifest destiny – the diplomatic prodigy who rises right to the top and one day leads our politics toward a more enlightened and understanding place. The inclination to like him, to believe in him, was strong. He stirred interest even among those who don’t usually vote Conservative – maybe for this guy someday they would. Maybe he was special.

Unfortunately, Alexander has often disappointed.

Instead of bringing diplomatic grace to the practice of politics, he has frequently proven himself a devoted student of the poison-tipped partisanship that so thoroughly defines the Harper Conservatives. During his time in Ottawa he has done what it takes to get noticed, win advancement and gain the favour of a prime minister who prefers spear-throwers to problem solvers. The former ambassador has conquered Ottawa by becoming a foot soldier, another suit of armour in Harper’s Talking Points army. It’s been a shame to see.

The most recent and strident example came this week with his early handling of the Syrian refugee crisis. The limp, lifeless image of a little boy whose family hoped to escape tyranny has seized the attention of people around the world — a haunting snapshot that shreds the gut of any parent. As the father of four boys, I admit to succumbing to emotion on the matter. It clouds my mind and makes me rage to do something to help. I’d like to see our government do more to help also.

Maybe it’s a bad idea to make policy by way of Instagram. Maybe it’s right to say that this crisis has been brewing for years and that thousands of other boys have been lying abandoned and dead on beaches. Maybe it’s kneejerk and unfair – improvised and impetuous. Maybe. Or maybe past indifference is no excuse for an inadequate ongoing effort. Maybe a single searing image is what’s sometimes required to jolt people out of their lethargy, galvanize public interest and brew popular demand for a fuller response.

Our government’s policy to date, championed by this minister, has not been sufficiently robust – taking in too few people in need, relying too much on private sector sponsors in the place of direct government action and permitting domestic politics to infect our humanitarian response. Of course we can’t save every life at risk. But we can do a lot more than we have been doing.

In fairness, it is complex and unforgiving territory. Immigration ministers have been striking the wrong balance, playing to the political bleachers and screwing up our refugee policy for decades, in governments of every stripe. On top of all that, let’s keep in mind that Alexander has a boss. He serves at the pleasure of the prime minister. So perhaps we’re expecting too much to expect much different.

Harder to excuse was the petty, nasty tone that accompanied Alexander’s initial defence of the government’s refugee policy. He scolded critics, deflected responsibility, questioned others’ commitment and, when backed into a corner of his own making, attacked the media as being to blame for it all. It came to a head on the Wednesday edition of CBC’s Power and Politics. Alexander grew hostile as he struggled to explain his position, eventually challenging the show’s host, Rosemary Barton. In full bluster, he tried bullying her, saying that the network had never discussed the issue before (not true) and had certainly never before interviewed him on the topic (only true because he had refused to participate in such broadcasts).

Barton would have none of it. On live television, she corrected Alexander’s mischaracterizations and then put the boots to him hard. At least the next night, after suspending his campaign to concentrate on the crisis (which critics were wrong to dismiss as an empty gesture, it was the right thing to do) he redeemed himself slightly with a more composed performance.

But it’s not the first time he’s played the part of the unthinking partisan. Watching Wednesday night’s spectacle, one had to wonder what’s gone wrong. Where did that original Chris Alexander go? Up there on the screen that might as well have been Paul Calandra or Pierre Poilievre, government spokespersons that we’ve come to associate with transparent posturing.

That’s the really troubling thing. Alexander, a knowledgeable, talented and presumably well-motivated person, someone whose history and abilities once inspired sincere hopes for great things has allowed himself to become just another one of “them.” A snapping, snarling partisan.

Not because he’s a bad person. Not because he’s taken this particular stand on this particular issue. But because that’s what politics – specifically politics as it’s currently practiced on Parliament Hill – does to people. It brings them low.

If the Conservatives lose this election, don’t underestimate how much this sort of thing contributes to their downfall. When even the likes of Chris Alexander can be so diminished people can see that something about our politics simply has to change.

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.

 

[The Bread Guy]

On whether politcians MUST speak to media - from the article in the previous post:

.... Harder to excuse was the petty, nasty tone that accompanied Alexander’s initial defence of the government’s refugee policy. He scolded critics, deflected responsibility, questioned others’ commitment and, when backed into a corner of his own making, attacked the media as being to blame for it all. It came to a head on the Wednesday edition of CBC’s Power and Politics. Alexander grew hostile as he struggled to explain his position, eventually challenging the show’s host, Rosemary Barton. In full bluster, he tried bullying her, saying that the network had never discussed the issue before (not true) and had certainly never before interviewed him on the topic (only true because he had refused to participate in such broadcasts) ....

You don't have to, but here's the risk you run - live by the sword ....

 

[Retired AF Guy]

7,484

Crown corp expenses

Well, that is one area where could probably save some money.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am one of those who favours a substantial increase in defence spending ~ I think 2% of GDP is both a reasonable and responsible goal, even as I appreciate that, absent a clear, well understood threat, it is politically impossible

Especially if we figure that (essentially) doubling the Defence Budget would put it on the same level as CHT/CST expenses and would increase the total expenditures of the government by about 8%.

The numbers also scotch my other plan to sell a Defence Budget increase by a matching Foreign Aid Budget increase.  Raising the Defence Budget to 2% of GDP and the Aid Budget to 1% of GDP (I know the international target is 0.7% - bear with me) would increase government expenditures by 16%.  That is totally unsaleable.

But.

Perhaps the matching formula could work at a less agressive level?  Say, for every additional 0.1% of GDP spent on Defence an equivalent amount will be spent on Foreign Aid?

With a bit of work that Foreign Aid budget could also be used to serve Industry Canada (supplying Canadian goods overseas)  and National Defence (purchasing logistical services from ND to respond to foreign disasters).

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

On whether politcians MUST speak to media - from the article in the previous post:You don't have to, but here's the risk you run - live by the sword ....

I wonder if people are as concerned about Mr. Trudeau and his refusal to speak to Sun media or Obama and his refusal to speak to Fox? For all their perceived bias they are still media outlets (and why is it that media with a right bias are "crazy" (Fox) but media with a left bias (MSNBC) are fair and balanced?)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I wonder if people are as concerned about Mr. Trudeau and his refusal to speak to Sun media or Obama and his refusal to speak to Fox? For all their perceived bias they are still media outlets (and why is it that media with a right bias are "crazy" (Fox) but media with a left bias (MSNBC) are fair and balanced?)

Bingo!

 

[PPCLI Guy]

No media outlet has called Mr Harper's father a slut, and reused to apologise. 

As to Obama and Fox, who fucken cares?  What happens in a different country has no bearing on this.

As to Fox itself, I will let them talk for themselves:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN]www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN]http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN

And in the spirit of fairness, here it is for MSNBC:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/31/msnbcs-top-offensive-moments/

 

[Fishbone Jones]

No media outlet has called Mr Harper's father a slut, and reused to apologise. 

Doesn't explain why Mr Trudeau used an incident in 2014, not to speak to Sun in 2012 and 2013. Besides a poor choice of words, what Levant said was basically true. For both Mr Trudeau's father and mother, of which neither was bashful about including the media in their sexual affairs.

 

[Acorn]

A bit of an omnibus post here. I'm sure only some of you will mind.  ;D

Re: the media - I'll accept that there's no legal obligation for a politician to speak to the media, but trying to manage the message the way the Harper Government (R) has done is clearly working against them - given their promises of "openness" in government, doubly so.

Chris Alexander was "sandbagged" alright, but not by the CBC. He was sandbagged by the way the Conservatives have been doing things. Ministers who are not permitted to "freelance" an interview or media scrum find themselves unable to handle things that pop up unexpectedly. "Events, dear boy" as we've seen. The knee-jerk reaction which was to attack is what they do, and it backfired. I'm not sure Harper is inclined to swing towards "mission command" but he should think about it. Where's Joe Oliver?

By the way, whatever good people think Chris Alexander brought to CIC, I think Kenny was a better minister - probably the best Immigration minister since, umm, well a really long time.

Mulcair's position on Iraq/Syria doesn't impress me. It's a situation that can't be controlled or dealt with by a single tactic. There needs to be miltary action in the region, political action to influence what eventually rises as governments there, and humanitarian action to ease the suffering. Libya shows us what happens when we walk away. Iraq is an example of expectations being a replacement for planning. Afghanistan was better handled, though the interregnum of the Iraq war was a lost opportunity, I think. But that stuff is hardly Canadian.

I'm not holding the "winter coats" thing against Trudeau though. It's innocuous compared to Mulcair's "Truther" comments on 9/11 some time ago. I'd like to see/hear Trudeau's policies firm up, but I won't hold my breath.

I'd like to think economic policy will be the main factor in the election, as it should be, but I'm not sure there are enough voters who delve into that. Come election day, the party with the fewest gaffes in the preceeding week is going to have an advantage. Sorry, I should caveat that - the party other than Conservative. Like it or not, the Governing Party has a record, and if that record is unpopular, as the Conservative record is, they're fighting an uphill battle.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Doesn't explain why Mr Trudeau used an incident in 2014, not to speak to Sun in 2012 and 2013. Besides a poor choice of words, what Levant said was basically true. For both Mr Trudeau's father and mother, of which neither was bashful about including the media in their sexual affairs.

Response deleted to reflect a private conversation

 

[Edward Campbell]

Day after tomorrow is Labour Day, soon, sometime after Labour Day, the polls will actually start to matter.

That being said, here is David Akin's latest Predictionator:

 

[Altair]

If those are the results, things are going to be interesting.

Informal coalition in the works I imagine.

And the only leader I see stepping down is harper.

 

[PuckChaser]

If Trudeau lands third place again, after being a 10 point leader a year ago, expect calls for his head. The Liberals are great at throwing the party leader under the bus for the failings of their policy makers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If those are the results, things are going to be interesting.

Informal coalition in the works I imagine.

And the only leader I see stepping down is harper.

Don't forget the "long time" thing ... and there are six long times to go. In six long times: any of the three leaders can melt down/implode/whatever, any of the "events" that are, as yet unimagined can explode and wipe out any of the parties' campaign, or an "event" can vault any of the leaders and his party into solid majority territory.

The first phase of the campaigns ends on Tuesday. the second and third phases will run from 8 Sep through to, about, 12 Oct (Thanksgiving). The final phase will be from Thanksgiving until election day, itself. Just as we do in the military, the campaign tacticians will have different objectives for each phase, leading, phase-by-phase, to capturing the "vital ground" (the most seats) on 19 Oct.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

No media outlet has called Mr Harper's father a slut, and reused to apologise. 

As to Obama and Fox, who fucken cares?  What happens in a different country has no bearing on this.

As to Fox itself, I will let them talk for themselves:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN]www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN]http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN

And in the spirit of fairness, here it is for MSNBC:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/31/msnbcs-top-offensive-moments/

You just stated the media, not the media that you like. 1 commentator on Sun news made a comment about Mr. Trudeau's mother, which was quickly disavowed by sun news. I think it was more a case of a convenient excuse for Mr Trudeau, but no bother.


My original point is that Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulclair, and Mrs May have no obligation to speak to the media if they dont wish to do so. Using Mr. Trudeau as an example, he manages to pass his message perfectly well (well, as the third place guy maybe not as well as he would like) through friendly media. Ditto for Mr. Harper, ditto for Mr Mulclair. If they desire to avoid the media (which isn't just the traditional print and TV media anymore, lets not forget) than they do so at their own peril.

The nice thing about a democracy is that we can choose to view the leaders how we want. We also have a media free to find stories and present stories (even if they have a blatant bias).

In terms of the MSM, I do get a sense that some of their writers are perplexed that their views on Harper "destroying Canada" aren't causing the LPC to form a majority government, and others are equally perplexed that anyone would vote for Trudeau. Tom Mulclair by and large seems to be presented in the MSM as the third place candidate.

 

[Altair]

Two more polls came out Saturday,  all of which had the conservatives in third, grits in second and dippers in first.

Forum

NDP 36

LPC 32

CPC 24

Léger

NDP 31

LPC 30

CPC 28

A couple of more long times to go, but same as in a hockey game, you can only watch and comment on the period you're in.

Léger looks more accurate though.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

A couple of more long times to go, but same as in a hockey game, you can only watch and comment on the period you're in.

Léger looks more accurate though.

There are some further comments on the Léger poll in this article in the Globe and Mail which is headlined: "Canadians want a new PM, poll suggests."

Now, I still think it's too early to worry about polls, but I suspect that the headline is correct. As I have said, earlier and more than once, I believe that seven to 10 years is about the modern "limit" for a prime minister. I doubt that we will, ever again, see PMs who endure for 15+ (Trudeau) or 20+ (Mackenzie King) years. My sense is that Prime Minister's Harper's "best before date" was in the Spring of 2015. He might have given his party a better shot at remaining in power had he announced his resignation in late 2014, and handed over, after a two month leadership race, early in 2015. But late summer 2014, when he might have made that decision, was a very, very different time: before the oil price collapse (Sep 14), before the Mike Duffy charges (Jul 14) and trial (Apr 15) and before the NDP victory in Alberta (May 15).

My guess is that Canadians will vote against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not because they actually oppose his policies (the vast majority will have little or no idea about any party's policies) and not because they think he's dishonest (Ialthough some do believe that) but, rather, because they are tired of him ~ sick and tired of him in some cases.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A bit of an omnibus post here. I'm sure only some of you will mind.  ;D

Re: the media - I'll accept that there's no legal obligation for a politician to speak to the media, but trying to manage the message the way the Harper Government (R) has done is clearly working against them - given their promises of "openness" in government, doubly so.

Chris Alexander was "sandbagged" alright, but not by the CBC. He was sandbagged by the way the Conservatives have been doing things. Ministers who are not permitted to "freelance" an interview or media scrum find themselves unable to handle things that pop up unexpectedly. "Events, dear boy" as we've seen. The knee-jerk reaction which was to attack is what they do, and it backfired. I'm not sure Harper is inclined to swing towards "mission command" but he should think about it. Where's Joe Oliver?

By the way, whatever good people think Chris Alexander brought to CIC, I think Kenny was a better minister - probably the best Immigration minister since, umm, well a really long time.

Mulcair's position on Iraq/Syria doesn't impress me. It's a situation that can't be controlled or dealt with by a single tactic. There needs to be miltary action in the region, political action to influence what eventually rises as governments there, and humanitarian action to ease the suffering. Libya shows us what happens when we walk away. Iraq is an example of expectations being a replacement for planning. Afghanistan was better handled, though the interregnum of the Iraq war was a lost opportunity, I think. But that stuff is hardly Canadian.

I'm not holding the "winter coats" thing against Trudeau though. It's innocuous compared to Mulcair's "Truther" comments on 9/11 some time ago. I'd like to see/hear Trudeau's policies firm up, but I won't hold my breath.

I'd like to think economic policy will be the main factor in the election, as it should be, but I'm not sure there are enough voters who delve into that. Come election day, the party with the fewest gaffes in the preceeding week is going to have an advantage. Sorry, I should caveat that - the party other than Conservative. Like it or not, the Governing Party has a record, and if that record is unpopular, as the Conservative record is, they're fighting an uphill battle.

There is an article in the Ottawa Citizen headlined, "Canada has no military role to play in Syria, Iraq: Mulcair" which says that "Mulcair dismissed military action, specifically Canada’s current bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, as a solution ..."

I have not seen (but I haven't looked very hard) anything new from M Trudeau since he said (two months ago), "I'll end ISIS combat mission, restore relations with Iran."