Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

This is where the anti-Trudeau ads are like trying to balance on the edge of a knife though. Driving Trudeau down runs a serious risk of breaking up the vote splits that would be necessary to take seats in Quebec and BC.

I do legitimately wonder who those ads are intended to appeal to, and I think the answer is the Conservative base. The old guy in the ads is pretty much exactly what I would think of if I was trying to sketch a caricature of the average Conservative voter. I think the goal is to use someone that the base can relate to, spewing a bunch of fear-mongering nonsense in order to ensure the 50+ voters get out on election day.

I also love the how the Conservatives have completely rewritten the historical narratives in that ad.

"No one saw the financial collapse of 2008 happening, what if another one is right around the corner?"

Uhhh....first of all there were a tonne of people predicting the collapse of 2008. The Conservatives just did what they always do and went with their own gut instincts instead of listening to outside experts. Secondly, if another one is just around the corner, why would we want the same guys who had to be forced into accepting a stimulus package running the show. And finally, old-timer, have you seen the dollar? We're not around the corner from another recession, we're firmly in it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Wait, your view is that the Canadian federal government did a poor job of handling the 2008 economic crisis? And a bunch of people saw it coming and it was conservative gut instinct that led to their having blinders on not seeing it coming as well? And you're complaining about their revisionist history?

Good lord.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I do legitimately wonder who those ads are intended to appeal to, and I think the answer is the Conservative base. The old guy in the ads is pretty much exactly what I would think of if I was trying to sketch a caricature of the average Conservative voter. I think the goal is to use someone that the base can relate to, spewing a bunch of fear-mongering nonsense in order to ensure the 50+ voters get out on election day.

I like that take. Makes sense. It's obviously catering to the 50+ crowd. That has to be the case. But do you not think its targetting the broad spectrum of old-timers, not just the Conservative ones?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait, your view is that the Canadian federal government did a poor job of handling the 2008 economic crisis? And a bunch of people saw it coming and it was conservative gut instinct that led to their having blinders on not seeing it coming as well? And you're complaining about their revisionist history?

Good lord.

That's not what I said at all. The Conservatives originally rejected the proposed economic action plan that they now take credit for. So yes, the federal government handled it well, but to claim that somehow Harper has a good track record of handling recessions is absurd. Without the opposition parties threatening to form a coalition government, many of those measures wouldn't have passed.

And there were warnings as early as 2006 that an economic collapse was coming.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I like that take. Makes sense. It's obviously catering to the 50+ crowd. That has to be the case. But do you not think its targetting the broad spectrum of old-timers, not just the Conservative ones?

Yeah, that's probably correct. The Conservatives have made it abundantly clear that they couldn't give a rat's ass about the youth vote, and I really can't blame them. Until the under 30 crowd actually gets off their asses and votes, they can continue to expect the shaft from the major parties.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Uhhh....first of all there were a tonne of people predicting the collapse of 2008.

This is not correct at all. If it were, a bunch of very smart people at very smart investment banks and insurance companies would not be bankrupt right now. About the only people who saw this coming en masse in advance was Goldman Sachs who were shorting the **** as they peddled it. Throw in a few traders and small funds and that's it. To everyone interested in the topic I suggest you read The Big Short. There were, however, no shortage of people afterwards who came out and said "knew it" with little to no evidence to the fact.

As for the effectiveness of the stimulus, I agree with you in part. Some parts were ineffective and really just buying votes (lots of the EAP). Other parts were good - infrastructure spending will have much longer benefits than the Fraser Institute considered in their 2010 report. Other parts were great - bailing out the auto industry.

All in all, the Conservatives did a pretty great job handling the great recession. A large part of how we came out of it though needs to be attributed to the sound financial system put in place by previous Liberal governments.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

There were, however, no shortage of people afterwards who came out and said "knew it" with little to no evidence to the fact.

This could be what I'm mistakenly remembering.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Jacks

NDP are going to run out of money either way.

The Tories and NDP don't directly compete for voters, the Tories need to pull 5-10% of the swing voters that they share with the Liberals. A side benefit is that the weaker the Liberals are the more they will attack the NDP to try and keep their support, a strong Liberal Party will almost exclusively attack the Tories. I suspect the plan is to keep pounding on the Liberals and have them do the dirty work attacking the NDP. Once the election is well underway the NDP will run out of money and the Liberals should recover a bit.

My opinion is that the path to government is:
- The NDP loses a bunch of seats in Quebec to the Bloc and Liberals. The Tories can easily get 12+ seats if the NDP don't do well.
- Retain a large chunk of Ontario with a Lib/NDP split.
- Retain the majority of the Prairies.
- Hope like hell they don't get killed in BC.
- The Maritimes are pretty much a write off.

Besides the rural seats in Ontario - at this point I'd bet they lose a bunch of what they currently hold to the NDP.

[LChoy]

Food for thought?

My name is Donald Sutherland. My wife’s name is Francine Racette. We are Canadians. We each hold one passport. A Canadian passport. That’s it. They ask me at the border why I don’t take American citizenship. I could still be Canadian, they say. You could have dual citizenship. But I say no, I’m not dual anything. I’m Canadian.

We live in Canada all the time we can. Our family house is here. Professionally, I still have to think twice when I say “out” or “house.” I have to restrain myself from saying “eh?”. In 1978, that’s nearly 40 years ago, the Canadian government made me an Officer of the Order of Canada. The Governor-General gave me the Governor-General’s Award a while back. I am on your Walk of Fame in Toronto. My sense of humour is Canadian. But I can’t vote.

Americans who live abroad can vote. They can vote because they’re citizens! Citizens! But I can’t. Because why? Because I’m not a citizen? Because what happens to Canada doesn’t matter to me? Ask any journalist that’s ever interviewed me what nationality I proudly proclaim to have. Ask them. They’ll tell you. I am a Canadian. But I’m an expatriate and the Harper government won’t let expatriates participate in Canadian elections.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...ticle25731634/

While I can understand the governments position on this issue, I just don't like this decision. While some people may be Canadians in passport only, there are others that resides elsewhere that still have a connection to Canada, and does care for the direction of the country. It seems overly harsh decision. To be fair though, it was the Ontario court of Appeals that made the ruling when the Feds appealed the original ruling made by a lower court.

Maybe because I have been living in Toronto, but I think I'm done voting for the Conservatives. Not only on the issue, but other things I just fundamentally can't support such as muzzling scientists, lack of transparency, resistance to harm reduction initiatives, scrapping the long form census, the security bill, and in my opinion, the overall decrease in our Canadian reputation abroad.

Some posters addressed my earlier question about why we still see the attack ads on Trudeau, and my 2 cents is that it's also to prevent conservative voters from leaving and voting liberals instead. I think it's a big step to switch from Conservatives to NDP, but not so much to switch to vote liberal. It'll be a real challenge this coming election to figure out how I'll be voting

tl;dr ranting, ready for a change

Lchoy

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Besides the rural seats in Ontario - at this point I'd bet they lose a bunch of what they currently hold to the NDP.

Yeah, I wonder how badly the polls are underestimating strategic voting. There are a lot of people who just want Harper out and don't really care who gets in in the process.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I wonder how badly the polls are underestimating strategic voting. There are a lot of people who just want Harper out and don't really care who gets in in the process.

In Ontario at least - they need the Liberals to be strong for a NDP/Liberal vote split to happen to win a lot of the seats here. The Liberals getting decimated might actually hurt the CPC's chances of winning seats in Ontario.

[Harry Lime]

The Liberals support of the 'C-51 Patriot Act of KGB Shadiness' kind of set me in the position of not having anyone at all to vote for. Harpers consolidation of power in the PMs office turned me away from the PCs, and the leader of the NDP is a nut-job that I don't want to see in the ever increasingly powerful PMs chair.

But along comes the PC attack ads on Trudeau. The first one was kind of flailing around, and unintentionally funny. Now there is a new one where income splitting and child care are apparently going to be cut by the Liberals, and that's supposed to be scary.

My apologies to 90% of CP for my language and terminology, but is getting hitched and releasing your spawn into the world supposed to be a financial windfall? If someone has more than 3 kids, can we start charging them extra somehow? Once I hit a certain income level, is there a pool of trophy wives and husbands to draw from for tax evasion purposes?

Thanks PCs. I'm now leaning toward the Liberals, whom I've never considered voting for in the past. I didn't know about these awesome cuts, that I ideologically support, now that I've heard of them for the first time. I will use only your attack ads as the basis for all of my information on these policies, which seems fair.

[octothorp]

To the earlier question on why the PCs aren't attacking the NDP yet... I think it's because they know that in attacking Trudeau, they can drive voters from Liberals and that these will go to both the NDP and PCs, turning it increasingly into a two-horse race. Down the stretch, they can use the threat of an NDP government in to rally their base, especially in Ontario where the Bob Rae government is still so famously unpopular. If they can rally an anti-NDP wave in Ontario over the last weeks of the campaign, that's probably the single best boost to their chances of holding onto government. I'd be shocked if the conservatives aren't already working on a sinister-sounding ad superimposing images of Rae and Mulclair.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

My apologies to 90% of CP for my language and terminology, but is getting hitched and releasing your spawn into the world supposed to be a financial windfall? If someone has more than 3 kids, can we start charging them extra somehow? Once I hit a certain income level, is there a pool of trophy wives and husbands to draw from for tax evasion purposes?

This. I am not in support of handing out huge amounts of money for child care (like the Conservatives recently did), especially when people have larger families. That means taxpayers without kids now have to support other people's kids, whether they need it or not. And if you have three children or more, it becomes excessive. How can childless taxpayers also benefit? I don't think they can. They should just take that from taxpayers who have registered as having children. I will likely also be voting Liberal as well, with this in addition to the other concerns you listed above.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's vote buying, basically.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

That means taxpayers without kids now have to support other people's kids, whether they need it or not. And if you have three children or more, it becomes excessive. How can childless taxpayers also benefit?

Those children will be paying the taxes that support your pension, medical costs, etc. when you are older.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Those children will be paying the taxes that support your pension, medical costs, etc. when you are older.

Which is why we pay for their education, medical costs, etc. It doesn't mean we should just flat-out start giving their parents our cheques.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Food for thought?



While I can understand the governments position on this issue, I just don't like this decision. While some people may be Canadians in passport only, there are others that resides elsewhere that still have a connection to Canada, and does care for the direction of the country. It seems overly harsh decision. To be fair though, it was the Ontario court of Appeals that made the ruling when the Feds appealed the original ruling made by a lower court.

Maybe because I have been living in Toronto, but I think I'm done voting for the Conservatives. Not only on the issue, but other things I just fundamentally can't support such as muzzling scientists, lack of transparency, resistance to harm reduction initiatives, scrapping the long form census, the security bill, and in my opinion, the overall decrease in our Canadian reputation abroad.

Some posters addressed my earlier question about why we still see the attack ads on Trudeau, and my 2 cents is that it's also to prevent conservative voters from leaving and voting liberals instead. I think it's a big step to switch from Conservatives to NDP, but not so much to switch to vote liberal. It'll be a real challenge this coming election to figure out how I'll be voting

tl;dr ranting, ready for a change

Lchoy

Thanks for posting this. As an expat Canadian I will not have the right to vote in the upcoming election, and it's very upsetting to me. Since I moved abroad nine years ago I have spent long stretches of time back in Canada every year, I have worked on business projects specifically to bring foreign investment to parts of Canada that would benefit from economic stimulus because I care about those places in Canada and I have continued to receive education from Canadian universities. My family is still in Canada and I plan to move back to Canada next year. I have never considered myself anything but Canadian and have always maintained an interest in Canada.

I feel betrayed in losing the right to vote in a federal election. I'm not affected the same way by government policies as a Canadian resident is, but I am affected by Canadian policies in ways that citizens of other countries aren't and I definitely have an interest in the well-being of the country. I was born and raised in Canada and have always seen Canada as my home.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by octothorp

To the earlier question on why the PCs aren't attacking the NDP yet... I think it's because they know that in attacking Trudeau, they can drive voters from Liberals and that these will go to both the NDP and PCs, turning it increasingly into a two-horse race. Down the stretch, they can use the threat of an NDP government in to rally their base, especially in Ontario where the Bob Rae government is still so famously unpopular. If they can rally an anti-NDP wave in Ontario over the last weeks of the campaign, that's probably the single best boost to their chances of holding onto government. I'd be shocked if the conservatives aren't already working on a sinister-sounding ad superimposing images of Rae and Mulclair.

That was twenty years ago. Ontario's been through more hardships since then. I mean I guess its possible it could work on older voters but its not like the equally if not more unpopular Mike Harris government that followed in Ontario hurts Harper much (and the Liberals ran attack ads to compare them in the past).

Rae also led the Liberals for a while too... so I suppose it could be a two birds with one stone thing.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

FWhile I can understand the governments position on this issue, I just don't like this decision. While some people may be Canadians in passport only, there are others that resides elsewhere that still have a connection to Canada, and does care for the direction of the country. It seems overly harsh decision. To be fair though, it was the Ontario court of Appeals that made the ruling when the Feds appealed the original ruling made by a lower court.

Harper didn't make that law, it's been on the books for 22 years. Donald Sutherland doesn't live in Canada and, I can assume, hasn't paid taxes here in a loooong long time. I really don't see the big deal but if that is going to affect your 2015 vote I'm guessing you already had your mind made up.