Trudeau: “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control...

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Matty81

Its not like Trudeau himself is going to shape their platform. There will be a team and they will position themselves as centrists because its politically convienient. Any party that wants to win knows that and does it. Its exactly what Harper did, was more extreme when he was younger and positioned himself more and more moderate. And he was the opposite of polished in his youth. Awkward and often angry in interviews, much worse than Trudeau IMO interview ability wise. He learned and got better.

The thing is, there are certain issues like abortion, gun control and marijuana where the Conservatives won't touch the majority point of view just on principles, so unless our society gets more religious or conservative in a hurry, I think the Liberals will out flank them in the race to the centre. I don't buy that Trudeau will run on a super lefty platform strategically, I think thats old people fearing his Dad.

As for him being dumb, well he may be, I don't think that but I don't know it any more than you do. I've made many decisions and said many things I look back on as dbaggish and I wouldn't be defined as dumb by conventional standards. I learn from peoples reactions and the consequences, get stronger and move on.

The abortion issue is dead and buried, I have no problem with the gun control issue I had problems with a gun registry that was stupid, ill conceived and did nothing to stem the flow of illegal guns. The only issue that I have is with the grass laws, but that to me is not a big deal personally. I don't see this government as some socially regressive monster.

And if your saying that the Liberal Party leader is going to be a figure head who is going to be guided by back room committees then you've got a party problem. Harper good or bad has shaped the Conservatives and their policies since he started climbing to the leadership role, he was one of the key policy cogs when he was in opposition.

I don't see the Liberal's moving back to center right now, I don't think they can. I also think that allowing guys like Bob Rae and some of the other looneys to retain key party positions prevents that.

The Liberal's are a mess, they have bad leadership and they're backing the wrong horse.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

I think you'd like Hall-Findlay, but she's never been a particularly good campaigner. If I'm not mistaken, she only recently finished paying off her previous run at the leadership.

From a policy perspective, Hall-Findlay would be my choice but Trudeau's electability is a major asset in his favour (at least for now).

I like her, but at last read she was asking for extensions to pay off that debt, on top of that she doesn't have a seat.

I don't think she's a contender.

I think that the smart candidate would wait for Trudeau to ascend and destroy the party in the next election and then go for leadership.

I have my doubts that this leadership race is anything but a coronation and that anyone running against Trudeau is a waste of time.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Again, I think it speaks to their fear of losing this seat. Locke is close enough that if a large enough chunk of undecides or Turner supporters realize he's the only one who can win, they will vote for him. They specifical need the Liberal to look bad here. The Green and NDP realistically have no chance. McGunity's comments are nowhere near as damaging because he's irelevant nationally while Trudeau is arguably the Liberal leadership frontrunner at this point. Going after him potentially makes a larger dent in Locke's hopes just by association. (He was even in town this week)

bunk he was a member of their shadow cabinet and their national resources critic. He was a senior member of their party and helped form policy.

Its incredibly damaging and completely relevant nationally.

If he was a back bencher you would be right, but he was inner circle.

Your being a bit dishonest when you say something like that Clay.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And if your saying that the Liberal Party leader is going to be a figure head who is going to be guided by back room committees then you've got a party problem.

The policy is shaped by the membership of the party, not exactly "back room committees".

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that the smart candidate would wait for Trudeau to ascend and destroy the party in the next election and then go for leadership.

If your goal is party leader, maybe. If you goal is the anything else (prime minister, good government etc.) then it wouldn't make sense to allow the party to be destroyed.

[Matty81]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The abortion issue is dead and buried, I have no problem with the gun control issue I had problems with a gun registry that was stupid, ill conceived and did nothing to stem the flow of illegal guns. The only issue that I have is with the grass laws, but that to me is not a big deal personally. I don't see this government as some socially regressive monster.

And if your saying that the Liberal Party leader is going to be a figure head who is going to be guided by back room committees then you've got a party problem. Harper good or bad has shaped the Conservatives and their policies since he started climbing to the leadership role, he was one of the key policy cogs when he was in opposition.

I don't see the Liberal's moving back to center right now, I don't think they can. I also think that allowing guys like Bob Rae and some of the other looneys to retain key party positions prevents that.

The Liberal's are a mess, they have bad leadership and they're backing the wrong horse.

You're fine with those social issues because you'd probably traditionally have been a PC. Unfortunately for the party it also has a lot of wild rose style nutbars, the exact kind of people who just lost the US election for the republicans. Even Alberta rejected them for GS. They're increasingly out of touch and unwilling to compromise.

Trudeau won't be a figurehead but he has already assembled some pretty decent political strategists in his backroom. In 2 or 3 years when the election comes he'll be on message, or he'll lose. These kind of past missteps were dumb, but they will only burn him if they continue.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think when Quebec comes out with demands for more money, that the feds have to be unfraid to say no and force them to actually look at their budgets.

The language laws and all that, its a provincial thing and the only impact to me is what they spend to enforce it.

Right now we're doing no favors to Quebec by enabling them to spend like they do.

I find this paternalistic attitude towards the Quebec government and its spending decisions to be very puzzling, especially from Albertans who advocate weaker federalism and more provincial autonomy.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I find this paternalistic attitude towards the Quebec government and its spending decisions to be very puzzling, especially from Albertans who advocate weaker federalism and more provincial autonomy.

The number of seats in Parliament will go up from 308 to 338 next election.

Ontario +15
BC +6
Alberta +6
Quebec +3

So the purpose of catering to Quebec to get more seats is less effective.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I find this paternalistic attitude towards the Quebec government and its spending decisions to be very puzzling, especially from Albertans who advocate weaker federalism and more provincial autonomy.

Who do you think is funding Quebec's spending? Hint: It's not Quebec.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

Who do you think is funding Quebec's spending? Hint: It's not Quebec.

Firstly, Manitoba, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all receive substantially more equalization payments per capita than Quebec.

Secondly, the way Quebec chooses to spend its provincial budget has no direct effect on the amount of equalization it receives.

So, I remain puzzled.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by The Goon

In his defense, we should note the pencil-thin moustache that Trudeau is sporting during this interview.

We can't rule out that it might be his evil twin brother making those comments.

I mean, if I've learned anything from 80s television shows, it's that.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Firstly, Manitoba, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all receive substantially more equalization payments per capita than Quebec.

Secondly, the way Quebec chooses to spend its provincial budget has no direct effect on the amount of equalization it receives.

So, I remain puzzled.

Complaining about Equalization payments without actually understanding how the program works is one of the favourite hobbies of Angry Albertans.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Complaining about Equalization payments without actually understanding how the program works is one of the favourite hobbies of Angry Albertans.

We understand how it works. If the program didn't exist, we'd have more money and Quebec would have less.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by SebC

We understand how it works. If the program didn't exist, we'd have more money and Quebec would have less.

More overpasses and negative income tax for all!

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by SebC

We understand how it works. If the program didn't exist, we'd have more money and Quebec would have less.

Probably not. The payments are funded from federal tax revenue which the government collects regardless of what province you're in. If the equalization program didn't exist the federal government would still send money to the regions that a) need the money the most, and b) are places where they want to buy votes. It's the same in the US even though they don't have an equalization program. The poorest states receive the most federal money per capita.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Firstly, Manitoba, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick all receive substantially more equalization payments per capita than Quebec.

What's your point? Quebec still receives more total.

Secondly, the way Quebec chooses to spend its provincial budget has no direct effect on the amount of equalization it receives.

If they didn't receive the money, then they couldn't spend it. Then they might actually try to be more fiscally responsible. I'm sorry that's too complicated for you to understand.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The abortion issue is dead and buried, I have no problem with the gun control issue I had problems with a gun registry that was stupid, ill conceived and did nothing to stem the flow of illegal guns. The only issue that I have is with the grass laws, but that to me is not a big deal personally. I don't see this government as some socially regressive monster.

And if your saying that the Liberal Party leader is going to be a figure head who is going to be guided by back room committees then you've got a party problem. Harper good or bad has shaped the Conservatives and their policies since he started climbing to the leadership role, he was one of the key policy cogs when he was in opposition.

I don't see the Liberal's moving back to center right now, I don't think they can. I also think that allowing guys like Bob Rae and some of the other looneys to retain key party positions prevents that.

The Liberal's are a mess, they have bad leadership and they're backing the wrong horse.

You're wrong that the gun legislation did nothing to stem the flow of illegal guns. There was a provision in that legislation that required gun sellers to record how many and what kinds of guns they sold. This was to discourage "straw buying" where someone buys 50 Chinese SKS rifles then converts them to fully automatic AK-47's. There is no onus on the gun sellers anymore. Even in the gun happy US they require sellers to keep a list and its property of the ATF. I don't necessarily agree with the registration portion but the government opened the flood gates to illegal weapons by taking out the seller keeping a ledger portion. Tough on crime indeed.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

What's your point? Quebec still receives more total.

If they didn't receive the money, then they couldn't spend it. Then they might actually try to be more fiscally responsible. I'm sorry that's too complicated for you to understand.

I appreciate your condolences. I'm trying to keep up as best I can. However, I'm still struggling with your post. I stated that "the way Quebec chooses to spend its provincial budget has no direct effect on the amount of equalization it receives." I don't understand what your reply has to do with that statement.

It is of course true that if Quebec received less money from the federal government in transfer payments, it would likely have to spend less on provincial programs. However, the same would be true of any province. Further, its a bit rich for Albertans to lecture Quebec about "fiscal responsibility" when your (well, our) provincial government spends more per capita than any other provincial government.

Lastly, I'm sure you feel entitled to every last drop of benefit from the ocean of petroleum that you are lucky enough to share an arbitrarily drawn political boundary with, but I am not sure that you are so entitled to it. However, that is a separate argument altogether.

[Ped]

The fact that these comments are news probably have a lot less to do with the CPC (sorry, libs) then the fact that another federal liberal who happens to be the brother of Ontario's fleeing premier just recently made comments in the same vein, coupled with Trudeau's leadership campaign.

If Justin Trudeau was Justin Blanc he wouldn't even be running for leader. And this isn't the first time he's made comments that don't exactly show him as viewing national unity in a positive light.

But, I guess for some people the CPC boogeyman is always hiding under the bed.

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by Makarov

I appreciate your condolences. I'm trying to keep up as best I can. However, I'm still struggling with your post. I stated that "the way Quebec chooses to spend its provincial budget has no direct effect on the amount of equalization it receives." I don't understand what your reply has to do with that statement.

It is of course true that if Quebec received less money from the federal government in transfer payments, it would likely have to spend less on provincial programs. However, the same would be true of any province. Further, its a bit rich for Albertans to lecture Quebec about "fiscal responsibility" when your (well, our) provincial government spends more per capita than any other provincial government.

Lastly, I'm sure you feel entitled to every last drop of benefit from the ocean of petroleum that you are lucky enough to share an arbitrarily drawn political boundary with, but I am not sure that you are so entitled to it. However, that is a separate argument altogether.

Are there any other nationally shared benefits from resources? I don't really know - honest question.

If not, why is oil the special case?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Tough on crime indeed.

Tough on crime, soft on guns.