Election 2015

[kelownabomberfan]

 

I don't know too much about it, but isn't a shitload of water used in the process?

Yes, and it's more than a shitload. It's more like shitshitshitload. Then, of course there the greenhouse effect of transporting the water, and waste water, to and from facilities.

 

 

There's a greenhouse effect from transporting water?  Really?

[rebusrankin]

I find it interesting that when we've had Conservatives caught doing something foolish (peegate, prank phone calls) or Liberals (Davis in BC, the young lady in Alberta) they resign and apologize. The NDP's senior communications person posts a bunch of offensive comments and no resignation or apology and Tommy defends him. Have to love the lack of NDP ethics.

[Rich]

I've cleaned up a bunch of posts in this thread.  

 

I know people get passionate about politics and whatever side they happen to fall on, but please keep the discussion to the issues at hand and not insulting and calling out other posters.  We still have a long way to go to the election, and wouldn't want to have to close this topic down.

 

If you feel that I’ve missed any posts in this thread that should also be moderated, please shoot me a PM or flag it.  Did my best to delete the obvious ones, but it is probable that I missed some.

[kelownabomberfan]

I find it interesting that when we've had Conservatives caught doing something foolish (peegate, prank phone calls) or Liberals (Davis in BC, the young lady in Alberta) they resign and apologize. The NDP's senior communications person posts a bunch of offensive comments and no resignation or apology and Tommy defends him. Have to love the lack of NDP ethics.

 

If you are an NDP, you can do no wrong.  Ever.

[iso_55]

 

I find it interesting that when we've had Conservatives caught doing something foolish (peegate, prank phone calls) or Liberals (Davis in BC, the young lady in Alberta) they resign and apologize. The NDP's senior communications person posts a bunch of offensive comments and no resignation or apology and Tommy defends him. Have to love the lack of NDP ethics.

 

If you are an NDP, you can do no wrong.  Ever.

 

Or with the media.

[The Unknown Poster]

I've cleaned up a bunch of posts in this thread.

I know people get passionate about politics and whatever side they happen to fall on, but please keep the discussion to the issues at hand and not insulting and calling out other posters. We still have a long way to go to the election, and wouldn't want to have to close this topic down.

If you feel that I’ve missed any posts in this thread that should also be moderated, please shoot me a PM or flag it. Did my best to delete the obvious ones, but it is probable that I missed some.

Sorry Rich. You're right.

[rebusrankin]

It also bothers me with the media that Fin Donelly is getting a pass from them after lying about a dead boy.

[The Unknown Poster]

It also bothers me with the media that Fin Donelly is getting a pass from them after lying about a dead boy.

I'm harping now. But this is THE worst thing of this election.

[iso_55]

I'm really trying not to pay attention to  this election. If Harper had done the usual 39 day election bit, I'd have been more interested but what he did going for 79 days smacked of political opportunism which I didn't like. I wonder how many Canadians feel like I do? What was he & his advisors thinking when he dropped the writ during the Duffy trial? It's just gone from bad to worse for the guy. As a Conservative supporter, I'm just going WTH??? Mulcair just scares the bejeebers out of me. I'll vote for Trudeau if it looks like Harper is going down to prevent that guy & his socialist party from gaining power. I bet a lot of Conservative supporters will do the same. Harper my first choice, Trudeau second, if need be. The lesser of 2 evils.

[The Unknown Poster]

I don't think a lot of Canadians care at the best of times so this makes little difference. If people only start caring 39 days out then they still have that option.

In other news, Cretien calling any PM shameful is hilarious and sad. How is that dinosaur even remotely relevant?(and yes I voted for that dinosaur)

@davidfrum: Stephen Harper’s firm line on Middle Eastern refugees may have saved his campaign: up 5 points in 2 days nationwide, even more in Cdn West

[Brandon Blue&Gold]

I don't think a lot of Canadians care at the best of times so this makes little difference. If people only start caring 39 days out then they still have that option.

In other news, Cretien calling any PM shameful is hilarious and sad. How is that dinosaur even remotely relevant?(and yes I voted for that dinosaur)

@davidfrum: Stephen Harper’s firm line on Middle Eastern refugees may have saved his campaign: up 5 points in 2 days nationwide, even more in Cdn West

This might also sway some voters...

 

http://www.canoe.com/Canoe/Money/News/2015/09/14/22551520.html

[FrostyWinnipeg]

 

I don't think a lot of Canadians care at the best of times so this makes little difference. If people only start caring 39 days out then they still have that option.

In other news, Cretien calling any PM shameful is hilarious and sad. How is that dinosaur even remotely relevant?(and yes I voted for that dinosaur)

@davidfrum: Stephen Harper’s firm line on Middle Eastern refugees may have saved his campaign: up 5 points in 2 days nationwide, even more in Cdn West

This might also sway some voters...

 

http://www.canoe.com/Canoe/Money/News/2015/09/14/22551520.html

 

If that's true thats the first 'true' Con surplus since the 60's?

[The Unknown Poster]

Well surplus I guess. Or as the CBC will say, Harper has hogged the money. Running deficits is now a good thing. A surplus is bad.

[The Unknown Poster]

Last Friday, every newsroom and, one would assume, every campaign war room in the country, would have seen the following advisory from the Department of Finance:

The Department of Finance will release the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada at 9:00 a.m. ET on Monday, September 14, 2015.

The Annual Financial Report summarizes the Government’s financial results for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2015, including the budgetary balance. The Department is also releasing updated Fiscal Reference Tables, which provide annual data on the financial position of the federal, provincial-territorial and local governments.

And everyone who saw that would have immediately understood its importance. This Annual Financial Report (AFR), with numbers verified by the Auditor General of Canada, would tell us once and for all whether the Stephen Harper Conservatives ran their 7th consecutive deficit for the 12-month period ending on March 31, 2015 (known for the rest of this post as fiscal 2015 or FY15) or broke free and ran a surplus.

In Budget 2015, the Conservatives themselves said FY15 would be the last of a string of deficit budgets and did not commit to being out of deficit until the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31, 2016 (and shall be referred to as fiscal 2016 or FY16). Their political opponents have been saying all campaign long that FY15 would be a deficit. But many independent observers thought that FY15 would show a small surplus.

So everyone knows this scorecard is to be made public at 9 ET. Every major newsroom in the country (including mine) was offered a chance to get a copy of the report at 8 ET on the condition we would not broadcast or publish details until 9 ET. I was one of those journalists that agreed to this routine embargo condition and accepted the report.

Nonetheless, the Liberal campaign — which did not get an embargoed copy — scheduled its leader, Justin Trudeau to make an announcement on support for seniors at 8:30 ET on Monday morning, 30 minutes before the release of the Annual Financial Report (AFR). Trudeau’s announcement was made in Toronto in front of a seniors advocacy group. The announcement itself took only a few minutes but then, rather than immediately take questions from reporters, Trudeau played host to a town hall-style Q & A from the assembled seniors. The clock, meanwhile, ticked toward 9 ET.

At 9 ET, Trudeau was still talking to the seniors. A few minutes after 9, he invited questions from the media. The very first question, not surprisingly, was about the information that every reporter had had in front of them for an hour but which neither Trudeau nor any of his advisors had seen:

REPORTER: You spent a lot of time attacking Mr. Harper on his economic record. Numbers just released by the Department of Finance about 15 minutes ago show that there was a $1.9 billion surplus posted in 2014-2015. So that basically balances the books a full year ahead of schedule. Given these new numbers, can you still say that Mr. Harper is a poor money manager and how do these numbers affect your own timeline? Because you have said that you won’t balance the books until 2019?

Trudeau should never have been put in this position. His first media availability Monday should have been scheduled until later in the day so that he could have read and been briefed on the report. Or Trudeau should have finished with reporters questions before the 9 ET release of the “surprise surplus.” Or he should have simply told reporters he would answer questions about this major budget document which he had not yet read later in the day.

Instead, he plunged right in — with disastrous results, considering he’ll be in a leaders’ debate on the economy in three days.

TRUDEAU: First of all, let’s remind everyone accord to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, according to a wide range of experts, we are in deficit right now …

Trudeau here is referring to a July 2015 report from the Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO report is about the cvrrent fiscal year, FY16, but Trudeau was asked about FY15 and the fact that the government was in surplus in 2015. In any event, the PBO report from July 2015 is an estimate, an estimate based on a series of assumptions about future GDP growth, about future oil prices. Since it is an estimate it is, by definition, not fact. And some of those GDP and oil price estimates have changed since that PBO report was prepared. In any event, the Budget 2015 numbers from the Department of Finance predicted a surplus for FY16. In PBO vs Finance Canada, it’s certainly not a slam dunk that PBO is always right.

… Mr. Harper has put us in deficit this year…

Absolutely false. So far this year — FY16 — we have data from three months or the first quarter. After three months, we are in surplus to the tune of $5 billion. A good chunk of that surplus — $2.1 billion — is the result of a one-time gain Canada made when it sold its stake in General Motors. But the rest is the result, as Finance said when it released the numbers for June, of increased revenues. We still have a ways to go but, at least so far, we are in surplus, not deficit. Trudeau continued …

"As for last year’s numbers, we know—and we saw Mr. Harper under-spending and making cuts to veterans affairs…"

Nope. Wrong. Look to the table at page 16 of the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Government of Canada [PDF] — a document which the Auditor General has verified — and you’ll see that the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $121 million more in FY15 than FY14, an increase of 13.5%.

"…to aboriginal affairs…"

Wrong again. Page 16 again. Aboriginal Affairs spent a whopping $1.986 billion — billion, with a ‘b’ — more in FY15 than it spent in FY14. That was an increase of nearly 30%.

"… to seniors…"

Strike three. I’ll quote from the AFR (p. 19): “Elderly benefits consist of Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement and Allowance payments. Total benefits were up $2.3 billion, or 5.5 per cent, in 2014–15, reflecting growth in the elderly population and changes in consumer prices, to which benefits are fully indexed. The increase in elderly benefits also reflects the accrual of retroactive payments.”

"… in the billions of dollars to that he could balance the books in time for his election. it was a political goal that actually has helped us slide into the recession…"

There is no economist anywhere that has concluded the actions or inactions of the federal government caused two successive quarters of negative GDP growth, the narrowest of definitions of recession. Moreover, as consumer demand remained strong in the first half of the year and employment growth was also strong in the first half, the consensus view of most economists is that Canada was never in a recession. In any event: A sitting prime minister puts the country in recession so he can get credit for balancing the budget? After running six deficits that were incurred to pull us out of recession? Does that even make sense?

"… that Canada is the only G7 country in [recession] right now …"

Let’s call this one a “Likely Wrong” again. I don’t know how every other G7 country is doing but Canada was in that narrow technical recession from January through to May. In June, the month for which we have the most recent data, the economy grew 0.5%. There is no economist I am aware of predicting negative growth for the current quarter or for the rest of the year. Now, most are predicting “sluggish” growth but growth is growth. The Bank of Canada said in July growth should be about 1 % this year. So while only a handful would say we were in a shallow technical recession earlier this year, there ain’t any I know of to say we’re still in recession.

"… but our economic platform to invest in canada, to invest in the future is not based on the past few bad months that Mr. Harper has had. it’s about the past bad ten years that Mr. harper has put forward. Canadians I’ve talked to across this country recognize that we need investment in housing, in public transit. in growing the economy. Because Mr. Harper has been unable to create that growth. and we are committed to balancing the budget in 2019 —"

The budget is balanced right now. And two of his political opponents believe it should stay balanced.

"… and we will do that be being fiscally responsible and by growing the economy to the kind of investments in jobs and in Canadians that we need. We are the party that is telling Canadians the truth about the economy."

Truth about the economy? The truth is we a) ran a surplus in FY15 are in surplus after the first quarter of FY16 and c) spending by Ottawa on veterans, aboriginal affairs, and seniors increased in 2015 in absolute and relative terms compared to 2015.

A war room forewarned — as it was on Friday — should be forearmed. On a day when everyone and their uncle knew the big deal would be surplus or deficit, the Liberals sent their leader unprepared. And then it failed to follow up later in the day in any substantive way to challenge the numbers or the economic record of the incumbent they’re trying to beat.

[The Unknown Poster]

Ctv

The latest numbers for the three leading parties:

Conservatives: 31.0 per cent

Liberals: 29.6 per cent

NDP: 30.4 per cent

[The Unknown Poster]

And here's a good read for those interested in media bias:

 

http://blackrod.blogspot.ca/

[AtlanticRiderFan]

Per CBC poll tracker, Conservative party has 122 seats, NDP 113 seats, Liberal 102 seats, and Green 1 seat.

 

Major rebound for Harper.

[The Unknown Poster]

Per CBC poll tracker, Conservative party has 122 seats, NDP 113 seats, Liberal 102 seats, and Green 1 seat.

 

Major rebound for Harper.

Very interesting.  Did the opposition really expect a deficit this year even with the government repeatedly saying they were on track for a surplus?  Because it seems the Liberals especially cornered themselves on the economy by hammering Harper and essentially saying "well since we're in deficit, *we* are going to manage that deficit properly and invest in infrastructure" and now that the surplus was announced, it makes the government seem like the "good economy" government and the opposition like reckless spenders.

 

I think the lies over the dead refugee child are playing into this too.  Im somewhat perplexed at the Liberals rising so much.  is that left-ist voters swinging back and forth between Libs and NDP?  Might the ABC crowd all "choose" a party to park their vote?  And will one of the opposition play on that by saying "look, the only way to stop Harper is for those of you voting for the Liberals to vote for us NDP'ers instead" (or vice versa)?

[sweep the leg]

 

Per CBC poll tracker, Conservative party has 122 seats, NDP 113 seats, Liberal 102 seats, and Green 1 seat.

 

Major rebound for Harper.

Very interesting.  Did the opposition really expect a deficit this year even with the government repeatedly saying they were on track for a surplus?  Because it seems the Liberals especially cornered themselves on the economy by hammering Harper and essentially saying "well since we're in deficit, *we* are going to manage that deficit properly and invest in infrastructure" and now that the surplus was announced, it makes the government seem like the "good economy" government and the opposition like reckless spenders.

 

I think the lies over the dead refugee child are playing into this too.  Im somewhat perplexed at the Liberals rising so much.  is that left-ist voters swinging back and forth between Libs and NDP?  Might the ABC crowd all "choose" a party to park their vote?  And will one of the opposition play on that by saying "look, the only way to stop Harper is for those of you voting for the Liberals to vote for us NDP'ers instead" (or vice versa)?

 

Disagree. I don't think most people care about this nearly as much as you do. I think it's more likely most Canadians have either forgotten about it or don't even know who Fin Donnelly he is.

 

The bigger issue, imo, is that a lot of Canadians agree with Harper's stance that he doesn't want to just open the borders and let refugees flood in. People have been conditioned to be scared of people from that part of the world, so they don't want them in our country.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

 

Per CBC poll tracker, Conservative party has 122 seats, NDP 113 seats, Liberal 102 seats, and Green 1 seat.

 

Major rebound for Harper.

Very interesting.  Did the opposition really expect a deficit this year even with the government repeatedly saying they were on track for a surplus?  Because it seems the Liberals especially cornered themselves on the economy by hammering Harper and essentially saying "well since we're in deficit, *we* are going to manage that deficit properly and invest in infrastructure" and now that the surplus was announced, it makes the government seem like the "good economy" government and the opposition like reckless spenders.

 

I think the lies over the dead refugee child are playing into this too.  Im somewhat perplexed at the Liberals rising so much.  is that left-ist voters swinging back and forth between Libs and NDP?  Might the ABC crowd all "choose" a party to park their vote?  And will one of the opposition play on that by saying "look, the only way to stop Harper is for those of you voting for the Liberals to vote for us NDP'ers instead" (or vice versa)?

 

Disagree. I don't think most people care about this nearly as much as you do. I think it's more likely most Canadians have either forgotten about it or don't even know who Fin Donnelly he is.

 

The bigger issue, imo, is that a lot of Canadians agree with Harper's stance that he doesn't want to just open the borders and let refugees flood in. People have been conditioned to be scared of people from that part of the world, so they don't want them in our country.

 

Yes you're probably correct.  I was actually thinking that as I wrote.  I should have stated the refugee issue as a whole and not just the dead child.  You're very likely correct.

 

I think the surplus sort of makes people look at the last few weeks and say "gee Harper was actually right" and it scares people off a bit.  I think its one thing if we're in recession and in deficit then we can discuss how to spend the deficit and that opens the door for the opposition where you have the Liberals openly saying 'hey we're going to spend billions in the hole for years' and the NDP who say 'hey we're gonna spend like drunken sailors but dont worry...' and people perhaps are now thinking well wait, if we're in surplus and this government actually successfully guided us through two recessions, why should we go into deficit at all?

 

Or Im giving voters way too much credit ;-)

[The Unknown Poster]

Finally!  Concrete proof of a hidden Conservative agenda....whoops!

 

http://globalnews.ca/news/2221312/manifesto-backed-by-prominent-ndpers-calls-for-overhaul-of-economy/

 

Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of economy

 

OTTAWA – Just as Tom Mulcair attempts to convince Canadians that the NDP is a safe, moderate choice in the Oct. 19 election, some of his party’s highest profile supporters are issuing a manifesto calling for a radical restructuring of the country’s economy.

 

 

The “leap manifesto,” signed by more than 100 actors, musicians, labour unions, aboriginal leaders, environmentalists and other activists, aims to pressure the next federal government to wean Canada entirely off fossil fuels in as little as 20 years and, in the process, upend the capitalist system on which the economy is based.

 

The drivers of the manifesto are best-selling author Naomi Klein and her husband Avi Lewis. It echoes the theme of Klein’s latest book: This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, which was turned into a documentary of the same name, directed by Lewis.

 

READ MORE: Leaders debate to put weak economy on front-burner this week

 

Today’s release of the manifesto coincides with the debut of the documentary over the weekend at the Toronto International Film Festival.

 

The dramatic transformation envisioned in the manifesto is in stark contrast to the pragmatic platform Mulcair is offering: balanced budgets, an openness to free trade deals, sustainable development of Alberta’s oil sands, no tax hikes except for a “slight and graduated” increase in the corporate tax rate.

 

Yet among the celebrity signatories are a number of prominent NDP supporters, including former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, father of Avi, who gave a rousing introduction for Mulcair at a campaign event in Toronto last month.

 

Others signatories who’ve declared their NDP sympathies include pop duo Tegan and Sara, singer-songwriter Leslie Feist, Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuf and Paul Moist, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

 

Stephen Lewis doesn’t see his support for Mulcair as inconsistent with the manifesto, which he notes is also signed by people from other parties, including Roy McMurtry, a former Ontario chief justice and one-time provincial Conservative cabinet minister.

 

READ MORE: Group wants commercial development in national parks to be an election issue

 

“For the New Democrats, it’s an extension of the kinds of things they’ve been talking about,” Lewis said in an interview.

 

“When Tom Mulcair talks about climate change and the importance of dealing with global warming in Canada and internationally, this is an extension – admittedly a dramatic and vivid extension – of the kinds of things that many of us yearn for.”

 

Starting with the premise that Canada’s record on climate change is “a crime against humanity’s future,” the manifesto argues the country needs to make the leap from fossil fuel dependence to getting 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources – a feat it maintains is feasible within two decades.

 

This means adopting a new “iron law” of energy development: “If you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard,” to be applied equally to pipelines, fracking, increased oil tanker traffic and Canadian-owned mining projects abroad.

 

MORE: Three words sum up economy — ‘Best. Recession. Ever.’

 

In the process, the manifesto envisions a transformation of the entire capitalist system into a Utopia in which the economy is “in balance with the earth’s limits,” jobs “are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality,” agriculture is “far more localized and ecologically based,” and low-carbon sectors of the economy, like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media, flourish.

 

The signatories declare their belief in “energy democracy,” in which energy sources are collectively controlled by communities, rather than “profit-gouging” private companies.

 

They call for an end to “all corporate trade deals” that interfere with attempts to build local economies and regulate corporations.

 

In contrast to Mulcair’s insistence that running deficits puts an unfair economic burden on future generations, the signatories declare that “austerity – which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and health care, while starving public transit and forcing reckless energy privatizations – is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth.”

 

The signatories assert that the money to pay for the transformation they envision is readily available. All it requires is for the federal government to end fossil fuel subsidies, cut military spending and impose financial transaction taxes, increased resource royalties and higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

 

Other manifesto signatories include actors Ellen Page, Rachel McAdams, Sarah Polley, Pamela Anderson and Donald Sutherland, singers Bruce Cockburn, Neil Young, Gord Downie, Sarah Harmer and Leonard Cohen, novelists Michael Ondaatje and Joseph Boyden, environmentalist David Suzuki, anti-free trade activist Maude Barlow, artist Robert Bateman and film director Patricia Rozema.

 

© The Canadian Press, 2015

 

 

****This is the top trending news story in Canada.  CBC hasnt touched it.  CBC news' top stories are Emelia Clark not wanting to get naked on film anymore, how a surplus is bad for Canada and how Harper's tax cut for single seniors isnt that good.  No media bias though.

[TrueBlue4ever]

TUP, you made mention of "your newsroom" in a previous post about the Department of Finance release that the media was asked to be quiet about for an hour after its release. Just wondering what news media outlet you work for, since you seem so consumed with media bias on the left.

[The Unknown Poster]

TUP, you made mention of "your newsroom" in a previous post about the Department of Finance release that the media was asked to be quiet about for an hour after its release. Just wondering what news media outlet you work for, since you seem so consumed with media bias on the left.

If you're referring to the post at the top of the page, I didnt add any comments to it.  It was from an editorial but posted using my phone so I couldnt pretty it up at all.  I think the only thing I added was quotes to make it make more sense as far as what Trudeau was saying versus the editorial. 

 

I work for a unionized corporation, not a newsroom.  Im not consumed with media bias on the left, just amused when supporters of the left pretend there isnt a media bias.  There's generally a bias in everything.  Someone here accused me of being biased.  Ofcourse Im biased.  Im biased towards the party I support.  I used to be bias in favour of the Liberals actually.  Now Im biased in favour of the Cons.  And if another party speaks to me more than them and will, in my opinion, do a better job governing, I will be biased in their favour too.  Im not blindly in favour of the Conservatives as I've voted many different ways over the years.  I can be swayed.

 

There is conservative media that is bias towards the Cons.  But I think we can all agree the majority of mainstream media in this country has a left slant.  CBC is probably just the most glaring since they are tax payer funded.

[Atomic]

I'm not sure if that article is even worth worrying about, for a couple reasons.

 

1.  Just because the NDP's supporters want something doesn't mean the NDP is going to do it.  If I'm not mistaken, none of the signatories were actual NDP party members.  Could be wrong, I didn't read that closely.

 

2.  The type of sweeping changes discussed in the article would be difficult to accomplish with a majority government, but with a minority?  Forget it... will never happen.  And it will be a cold day in Hell before the NDP win a federal majority.

[The Unknown Poster]

I'm not sure if that article is even worth worrying about, for a couple reasons.

 

1.  Just because the NDP's supporters want something doesn't mean the NDP is going to do it.  If I'm not mistaken, none of the signatories were actual NDP party members.  Could be wrong, I didn't read that closely.

 

2.  The type of sweeping changes discussed in the article would be difficult to accomplish with a majority government, but with a minority?  Forget it... will never happen.  And it will be a cold day in Hell before the NDP win a federal majority.

I mostly find it amusing that ever since the right "united" the left spoke of the hidden conservative agenda and all the crazy far right wing things they'd do to Canada.  And here we have an actual manifesto authored and signed by many party supporters that is a pretty goofy far left wing agenda and actually speaks to what an NDP government *should* do.