Election 2015

[The Unknown Poster]

That's partisan nonsense. When a republican was in office the talking point was Harper was too close to the President.

It's absurd to think the PM can't call the President. And I don't think Canadians fall for that. Besides canadians generally don't want to be seen as too chummy with the Americans so that positioning might backfire on Trudeau

@acoyne: Harper: if you really want to poison the rel’ship w/ the US, pull out of Syrian mission and tell Obama he’s continuing policies of GW Bush.

[The Unknown Poster]

Hilarious

@BiomassDoug: He is way out of his league. Stomping his feet and interrupting just shows how childish he is. The true Trudeau. https://t.co/31jbG7qWQJ

@Uranowski: Trudeau was fantastic tonight. He gave well informed, balanced, hopeful answers. He is ready to be PM. #MunkDebate #elxn42

People are entrenched. They see what they want. On both sides.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

One more debate to go right? Still waiting for Trudeau or Mulcair to give the "us or them" comment making it a 2 party race.

[The Unknown Poster]

One more debate to go right? Still waiting for Trudeau or Mulcair to give the "us or them" comment making it a 2 party race.

Mulcair seems to be fading here.  I didnt watch the debate but followed along somewhat online and saw a lot of remarks about Mulcair "standing off to the side" while Trudeau and Harper sparred.  Im not sure what to make of that.

[Rich]

Saw a new NDP commercial last night.  It was a "copy / parody" of the Conservatives commercial where the group of people are discussing the merits of Trudeau, but in this one they are discussing Harper.

 

Right down to the end when they said that "Harper has nice hair though".  Made me laugh.   Still won't make me vote for them.

[The Unknown Poster]

Saw a new NDP commercial last night.  It was a "copy / parody" of the Conservatives commercial where the group of people are discussing the merits of Trudeau, but in this one they are discussing Harper.

 

Right down to the end when they said that "Harper has nice hair though".  Made me laugh.   Still won't make me vote for them.

I think I heard that on the radio.  Might have been funnier if it ended with them saying "needs to do something about that hair".

 

The "nice hair" spots were pretty good.  Just heard one on my drive into work.  Its an interesting way to paint Trudeau since in some respects he's likeable, to simply say "maybe one day, but not yet".  That about sums up my feelings on the Liberals.  Trudeau defending his position on terrorism etc hit that home.

[The Unknown Poster]

Uh oh

@CTVNews: This or That?': NDP's Mulcair chooses Starbucks coffee over Tim Hortons http://t.co/Hhz7xt5qlh#elxn42 http://t.co/xaIin4oNsu

[17to85]

Uh oh

@CTVNews: This or That?': NDP's Mulcair chooses Starbucks coffee over Tim Hortons http://t.co/Hhz7xt5qlh#elxn42 http://t.co/xaIin4oNsu

Not surprising, the NDP has always catered to the hipster douchebag crowd. 

[sweep the leg]

Who are these people whose twitter feeds you're reporting on? You just taking random tweets and posting them like they're important political voices? Please keep me up to date on what @biomassdoug has to say...

[The Unknown Poster]

Who are these people whose twitter feeds you're reporting on? You just taking random tweets and posting them like they're important political voices? Please keep me up to date on what @biomassdoug has to say...

Where did I say they were important political voices?  Remarks from Canadians watching the debate. 

[Mark H.]

This morning I heard the president of the CBC say they provide fair and unbiased election coverage. Just to be clear, my vote is undecided at this point. But I must have been in a different universe when said coverage occurred

[The Unknown Poster]

Is Mulcair running out of steam?

 

It was a good week for Stephen Harper and the Conservatives as the latest aggregate of polls gives them a 20-seat lead over the NDP.

 

the Conservatives could pick up 126 seats – 20 more than the NDP, and 22 more than the Liberals. Both the Bloc Quebecois, and the Green Party, pick up one seat each.

 

The Conservatives picked up 12 seats in the projections since last week, while the Liberals, and NDP, lost two and 11, respectively.

 

And most of the Conservatives gains came from the NDP losses.

 

“Clearly the NDP is slipping in some places more than others,” Barry Kay, a politics professor at Wilfrid Laurier University said in an interview Tuesday morning.

 

The NDP, which started the campaign in first place, has dropped to third, and in terms of public opinion, had a bad week. The party lost six percentage points in Quebec, resulting in a Conservative gain of four seats in the province. The NDP also lost three percentage points in British Columbia, and one in Atlantic Canada.

 

But the Conservative gain can’t just be attributed to a stumbling NDP, Kay said. The Tories also gained some seats in Ontario, including Brampton-North, Oakville, Glengarry, and London West.

 

But even if the Conservatives win the election, they’re well off the roughly 170-seat target they’ll need to form a majority government, Kay said.

 

“If [the Conservatives] come first, they will meet parliament and they will be defeated. Trudeau and Mulcair have said as much now that under no circumstances would they keep a minority conservative government in power,” Kay said.

 

 

***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP.  ie. people who might want a minority.  They have to get those people to really commit to change.  But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect.  if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?

 

If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".

[kcin94]

***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP.  ie. people who might want a minority.  They have to get those people to really commit to change.  But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect.  if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?

 

If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".

 

I believe a lot of ABC voters believe that it won't mean a new election, but that the Liberals and NDP would form a coilition and run things instead. Technically it's possible, but any attempts in the past to do so have failed (in my limited recollection). However I believe many people are convinced it will happen.

[The Unknown Poster]

 

***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP.  ie. people who might want a minority.  They have to get those people to really commit to change.  But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect.  if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?

 

If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".

 

I believe a lot of ABC voters believe that it won't mean a new election, but that the Liberals and NDP would form a coilition and run things instead. Technically it's possible, but any attempts in the past to do so have failed (in my limited recollection). However I believe many people are convinced it will happen.

 

I dont know...  I have a sense that voters dont want a coalition.  I dont think it plays well.  I could be wrong and its a legitimate aspect to our system but I think its too easy to frame it as "the losers stole the election" type of narrative.  Plus, one of the opposition (cant remember off hand) has said he's open to it and the other said not a chance.  So someone ends up a liar.

 

I think more likely, the opposition would grandstand about not supporting the government, make some back channel deals to get concessions from the Cons and then begrudgingly say they will vote for the budget or whatever other initiative until such time as enough time has passed or polls look better and then bring them down.  Remember, the Cons have a lot of money.  The opposition, not so much.  They dont want another election.

[kcin94]

 

 

***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP.  ie. people who might want a minority.  They have to get those people to really commit to change.  But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect.  if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?

 

If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".

 

I believe a lot of ABC voters believe that it won't mean a new election, but that the Liberals and NDP would form a coilition and run things instead. Technically it's possible, but any attempts in the past to do so have failed (in my limited recollection). However I believe many people are convinced it will happen.

 

I dont know...  I have a sense that voters dont want a coalition.  I dont think it plays well.  I could be wrong and its a legitimate aspect to our system but I think its too easy to frame it as "the losers stole the election" type of narrative.  Plus, one of the opposition (cant remember off hand) has said he's open to it and the other said not a chance.  So someone ends up a liar.

 

I think more likely, the opposition would grandstand about not supporting the government, make some back channel deals to get concessions from the Cons and then begrudgingly say they will vote for the budget or whatever other initiative until such time as enough time has passed or polls look better and then bring them down.  Remember, the Cons have a lot of money.  The opposition, not so much.  They dont want another election.

 

I think the voters who only care about getting Harper out would welcome a coalition. However I agree that others would not. As a former NDP supporter, I was pissed that the NDP tried to form coallitions with the Bloc.

[17to85]

 

***I understand why the opposition take the hardline approach because they want to sway those voters that might be turning away from the Cons but arent yet ready to go with Liberals or NDP.  ie. people who might want a minority.  They have to get those people to really commit to change.  But I wonder if it could have the opposite effect.  if the Cons continue to rise and you have the opposition saying "we will defeat this government immediately", will some of the undecided sway to the Cons to avoid another election?

 

If you strongly say "Canadians dont want a long election", how can you also say "Canadians want another election immediately".

 

I believe a lot of ABC voters believe that it won't mean a new election, but that the Liberals and NDP would form a coilition and run things instead. Technically it's possible, but any attempts in the past to do so have failed (in my limited recollection). However I believe many people are convinced it will happen.

 

The problem is I don't see them forming a coalition because neither party wants to be the junior partner in such a situation. I am sure that when both Mulcair and Trudeau talk about toppling the Conservatives they envision themselves as Prime Minister with the other party propping them up. I just do not see that happening. If the Liberals were the 3rd place party there is no way they would humble themselves to prop up the NDP. That just makes them irrelevant because it means they've accepted that the NDP has usurped them. Similarly I don't see Mulcair propping up a Liberal party because it just pushes them back to the irrelevant 3rd option. Too many egos and too much arrogance on both sides to really work together. They're all bluster but should the Conservatives win a minority I can see them letting them govern provided they get some concessions. 

[The Unknown Poster]

So really, the opposition's only option is to vote down a budget or non-confidence.  Or, whomever the official opposition is would help out the Cons to keep their position as official opposition rather then go into a costly election and risk dropping to third place.

[17to85]

Defeating a government on a confidence motion (the first opportunity would be the throne speech) doesn't necessarily mean an election. It's up to the governor general to decide. He can either send it to an election or ask one of the parties to try and gain the confidence of the house. They wouldn't even need a formal coalition, just enough support to get things passed. As I said though, I don't see either the NDP or Liberals being willing to work with each other if they're the second fiddle. As much as they are "**** Harper" they are also power hungry. 

[kcin94]

Defeating a government on a confidence motion (the first opportunity would be the throne speech) doesn't necessarily mean an election. It's up to the governor general to decide. He can either send it to an election or ask one of the parties to try and gain the confidence of the house. They wouldn't even need a formal coalition, just enough support to get things passed. As I said though, I don't see either the NDP or Liberals being willing to work with each other if they're the second fiddle. As much as they are "**** Harper" they are also power hungry. 

 

While that may be true, would they view propping of Harper to be more damaging to future election success that working with the other party.

[17to85]

 

Defeating a government on a confidence motion (the first opportunity would be the throne speech) doesn't necessarily mean an election. It's up to the governor general to decide. He can either send it to an election or ask one of the parties to try and gain the confidence of the house. They wouldn't even need a formal coalition, just enough support to get things passed. As I said though, I don't see either the NDP or Liberals being willing to work with each other if they're the second fiddle. As much as they are "**** Harper" they are also power hungry. 

 

While that may be true, would they view propping of Harper to be more damaging to future election success that working with the other party.

 

Well you can always spin giving the Conservatives support as "Just doing what the voters showed they want" GIven that both the NDP and Liberals want to position themselves as the alternative to voting Conservative working together that closely would do more damage. **** it up and people will turn around and put the Conservatives right back into power, do it well and the senior partner would get all the credit for it and the third party gets forgotten. I see supporting the Conservatives provided they get concessions as the best bet. 

[The Unknown Poster]

"As much as Canadians dont believe in this illegitimate government that does not have a mandate from the majority of the country, they also do not want to go through another wasteful election campaign as a result of the governments failed policies."

 

Which loosely translates to "We cant afford another election, probably cant win and risk losing even more."

[sweep the leg]

 

 

Defeating a government on a confidence motion (the first opportunity would be the throne speech) doesn't necessarily mean an election. It's up to the governor general to decide. He can either send it to an election or ask one of the parties to try and gain the confidence of the house. They wouldn't even need a formal coalition, just enough support to get things passed. As I said though, I don't see either the NDP or Liberals being willing to work with each other if they're the second fiddle. As much as they are "**** Harper" they are also power hungry. 

 

While that may be true, would they view propping of Harper to be more damaging to future election success that working with the other party.

 

Well you can always spin giving the Conservatives support as "Just doing what the voters showed they want" GIven that both the NDP and Liberals want to position themselves as the alternative to voting Conservative working together that closely would do more damage. **** it up and people will turn around and put the Conservatives right back into power, do it well and the senior partner would get all the credit for it and the third party gets forgotten. I see supporting the Conservatives provided they get concessions as the best bet. 

 

Get some concessions and then abstain from voting. Get what you want and not vote for the Conservatives would be a win-win from an opposition position.

[kelownabomberfan]

Not surprising, the NDP has always catered to the hipster douchebag crowd.

LOL - this made me guffaw...

[kelownabomberfan]

A poster on another site made a good point. Trudeau and Mulcair are all hot and bothered for Canada to make a big splash at the annual Marxist convention, aka the Climate Change nonsense in Paris, and now Mulcair wants to put in NEP Pt2 into action with an idiotic cap and trade system. Canada needs to have the ability to insert an "opt-out" provision on any agreement that is signed in Paris, especially if enforcing whatever stupid agreement is signed causes huge constraints on our economy. Will Trudeau or Mulcair do that? I don't think so.

[Mr Dee]

That's partisan nonsense. When a republican was in office the talking point was Harper was too close to the President.

It's absurd to think the PM can't call the President. And I don't think Canadians fall for that. Besides canadians generally don't want to be seen as too chummy with the Americans so that positioning might backfire on Trudeau

@acoyne: Harper: if you really want to poison the rel’ship w/ the US, pull out of Syrian mission and tell Obama he’s continuing policies of GW Bush.

That's Conservative Mulroney speaking.

 

And he's not alone on Harper's Foreign Policy issues.

 

Paul Heinbecker is a senior advisor to the School of International Policy and Governance at Wilfrid Laurier University and a fellow of the Balsillie School of International Affairs in Waterloo. A former chief foreign policy advisor to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, he was appointed ambassador to Germany by Mulroney and ambassador to the United Nations in New York by Jean Chrétien.

 

Excerpts

 

International Experience - With the exception of David Emerson, who served briefly, Harper has appointed foreign ministers as bereft of international experience as he was. Furthermore, the Harper government made clear it neither valued the expertise of Canada’s foreign service, aggregated across geography and time, nor trusted it. His government sold off irreplaceable diplomatic real estate abroad—important multipliers of diplomatic access and influence, that had been acquired over generations—and willfully diminished our diplomats’ standing, both in the countries in which they served and at home.

 

Personal Diplomacy - The Harper government got a hard lesson in the importance of personal diplomacy recently when it was revealed that American negotiators in Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations had concluded a bilateral deal with Japan that would let Japanese automakers ship cars and auto parts into North America duty free using materiel from Japan’s low-cost non-TPP partners, handicapping the crucial Canadian car and auto parts industries. Washington apparently did not give Ottawa advance warning, a breach of trust that would have been inconceivable in Mulroney’s day. 

 

Spin and Reality - Unlike preceding prime ministers, Harper did not conduct a foreign policy review when he came to office.

 

Other Headings

 

Relations with Washington

Mexico

China

The Middle East

Ukraine

Foreign Policy Outside In - The Harper government has talked a lot and accomplished a little. Stagecraft has trumped statecraft. Relations with Washington rival the dysfunctional Trudeau-Nixon days. With Beijing, our second most important and fastest growing economic partner, the Harper government has been pursuing an on-again, off-again light-switch diplomacy. Its interest in Asia has generally been more transactional than strategic, and we have been excluded from the East Asia Summit. Harper has needlessly, deeply alienated Mexico, our third-largest trading partner. It has subcontracted our Middle East policy out to Israel’s Likud. Its vaunted Arctic defence priority is window dressing. Harper and Baird’s posturing on Ukraine is not impressing anyone, certainly not the Russians. Of the major trade deals the Harper government has negotiated, only the one with Korea is in the bag, albeit several years late. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe is awaiting ratification by EU member states—not a sure thing—and the TPP is held up on two issues vital to Canada—the auto industry and the dairy industry. Stephen Harper’s (and John Baird’s) lecturing at the UN have made us the world’s scold, and lost us a Security Council election. Foreign posture has replaced foreign policy. Oh Canada. 

 

http://www.theharperdecade.com/blog/2015/9/27/foreign-posturing-how-does-harpers-foreign-policy-stack-up