Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

And how would that be? Please, share with us your Chicken Little jeremiad.

His double-edged approach to Quebec and the RoC (why aren't more people on here concerned with this??), his overtly hostile stance on the energy sector, and his daycare program.

All of these also have significant implications for Canadian federalism.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by evman150

Honestly, I don't get the hate for Mulcair. What is it that people don't like about him? How exactly is he "seriously flawed"? Who would be a better NDP leader? I think he's easily the best possible guy for the job (NDP leader) at this time. He is no Stephane Dion or Alexa McDonough - this is a guy who, in my opinion, has PM written all over him.

Lumping him in with Harper and Trudeau seems dishonest to me.

I'm slightly concerned about the ways which he reportedly runs his party. Doesn't sound like the guy is exceptionally more democratic than Harper. The article from the two current Green candidates who were former NDPers kind of spoke to it, but they're not the only ones who've said as much. I'm also annoyed about his stance on pot. Like I said, decriminalizing is just an attempt to pander to both sides and doesn't really solve revenue issue.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

His double-edged approach to Quebec and the RoC (why aren't more people on here concerned with this??), his overtly hostile stance on the energy sector, and his daycare program.

All of these also have significant implications for Canadian federalism.

The Quebec problem is interesting. Although at this time and with current levels of sovereigntism, I don't think it's like electing the NDP in say, 1993.

I don't know what the RoC is and have never seen that abbreviation before.

Overtly hostile towards energy - you mean oil. Just say it. Not energy, oil. And I haven't seen or read anything that indicates this, beyond the fact an NDP government wouldn't be in bed with the oil execs like Harper.

As for the daycare program, it's not perfect, and I think I prefer the Liberal proposal for child benefits, but anything is an improvement over the CPC's joke of a policy.

All that said, I don't see anything in there that indicates an implosion of the country.

[northcrunk]

Mulcair is basicly Harper with a beard who believes 1 vote is enough to split up the country and is a polar opposite when it comes to unions.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I'm slightly concerned about the ways which he reportedly runs his party. Doesn't sound like the guy is exceptionally more democratic than Harper. The article from the two current Green candidates who were former NDPers kind of spoke to it, but they're not the only ones who've said as much. I'm also annoyed about his stance on pot. Like I said, decriminalizing is just an attempt to pander to both sides and doesn't really solve revenue issue.

These are fair concerns (as are peter12's). The draconian aspect does concern me, but at the same time it does show he has control, and that he's not full-on bleeding heart. If this is what's necessary to get elected, then fair enough. It's not optimal, but it's better than sitting in the House with 28 MPs.

As for pot, I'm neither here nor there on it. If decriminalization stops the incarceration of tens of thousands of non-violent Canadians on ticky-tack sentences, then I'm good with it. Legalization and taxation can come in the future.

In short, I'm not saying the guy is perfect. At all. But no one is. I think he's a good, strong leader whose policies for the most part accord with my beliefs. I also think he's electable, which is more than I can say for most past NDP leaders.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by peter12

Given the latest economic events, and the inability of any of the candidates to even devote 25% of their campaign time to addressing them, but instead focusing on daycare, Duffy, and veterans, I am having a hard time believing in any of these dudes.

And yes, Mulcair would destroy this country.

Originally Posted by peter12

His double-edged approach to Quebec and the RoC (why aren't more people on here concerned with this??), his overtly hostile stance on the energy sector, and his daycare program.

All of these also have significant implications for Canadian federalism.

I fail to see how Harper is not also destroying the country already with his failed economic policies and consistent disrespect of the process that make the fundamental democratic systems the country is founded on.

Sure each of the different party has a different stance on various issues, but only Harper's party has a consistent record of trying to undermine the processes that are used to choose between various parties, thereby eroding the power of the electorate to remove him from power. On top of that his party has more than 20 individuals currently being investigated on various charges of misconduct and corruption.

How is Harper's party's continued and systematic confirmed efforts to reduce government transparency and manipulation of election processes not more of an issue than a potential stance on daycare and at worse hostility to the energy sector? You could always vote out Mulclair in a few years whereas Harper is trying to reduce your knowledge of his party's wrongdoing and reduce the ability vote him out altogether. Should ethics and accountability not be the most important thing when selecting a leader? How can you expect any promise or apparent stance to be worth anything otherwise.

This is not even bringing up Harper's horrible track record with the Alberta oil economy as previously posted.

[peter12]

The Quebec problem is interesting. Although at this time and with current levels of sovereigntism, I don't think it's like electing the NDP in say, 1993.

I don't know what the RoC is and have never seen that abbreviation before.

Rest of Canada. Incredibly common. Normally used when pandering to Quebec sovereignty enthusiasts.

Overtly hostile towards energy - you mean oil. Just say it. Not energy, oil. And I haven't seen or read anything that indicates this, beyond the fact an NDP government wouldn't be in bed with the oil execs like Harper.

What other part of the energy sector actually produces energy without massive government subsidy? Yes, energy sector equals oil. And no, Harper has done a horrible job of working with the oil industry.

As for the daycare program, it's not perfect, and I think I prefer the Liberal proposal for child benefits, but anything is an improvement over the CPC's joke of a policy.

All that said, I don't see anything in there that indicates an implosion of the country.

110,000 spaces in BC alone. Public daycare has proven to be massively expensive, and more or less a tax credit to wealthy two-income homes.

As for the rest of it, it is hilarious how dismissive you are of my criticisms, and how you intrinsically shift blame to the Harper government.

I am not even a Harper supporter, and have expressed that in this thread. It still stands that Mulcair's rhetoric conceals a very controversial, and dangerous policy agenda.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I fail to see how Harper is not also destroying the country already with his failed economic policies and consistent disrespect of the process that make the fundamental democratic systems the country is founded on.

Sure each of the different party has a different stance on various issues, but only Harper's party has a consistent record of trying to undermine the processes that are used to choose between various parties, thereby eroding the power of the electorate to remove him from power. On top of that his party has more than 20 individuals currently being investigated on various charges of misconduct and corruption.

How is Harper's party's continued and systematic confirmed efforts to reduce government transparency and manipulation of election processes not more of an issue than a potential stance on daycare and at worse hostility to the energy sector? You could always vote out Mulclair in a few years whereas Harper is trying to reduce your knowledge of his party's wrongdoing and reduce the ability vote him out altogether. Should ethics and accountability not be the most important thing when selecting a leader? How can you expect any promise or apparent stance to be worth anything otherwise.

This is not even bringing up Harper's horrible track record with the Alberta oil economy as previously posted.

Hilarious. Harper was bad, so let's go to another bad leader because hey, you can always vote him out too. NDP supporters astound me.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by peter12

Rest of Canada. Incredibly common. Normally used when pandering to Quebec sovereignty enthusiasts.

I'm reminded of that Coffee Crisp ad from a while back: "Just because you say it, doesn't make it a saying, dad!".

Originally Posted by peter12

And no, Harper has done a horrible job of working with the oil industry.

That's correct. His unnuanced approach has been a disaster.

Originally Posted by peter12

110,000 spaces in BC alone. Public daycare has proven to be massively expensive, and more or less a tax credit to wealthy two-income homes.

Like I said, I prefer the Liberal proposal. I hate tax breaks and credits for wealthy households. It's a slap in the face. I'm just not sure the NDP proposal is that. You say it is, but I wouldn't mind reading an article that analyzes the situation and make up my own mind.

Originally Posted by peter12

As for the rest of it, it is hilarious how dismissive you are of my criticisms, and how you intrinsically shift blame to the Harper government.

I'm not dismissive at all. They're legitimate concerns. But they pale in comparison to what Stephen Harper has done to this country and our democracy. As far as I'm concerned, I'm willing to take the chance that Mulcair and the NDP does a 0/10 job in government, just for the chance they do better. With the Harper government (TM), we are guaranteed a 0/10.

Think of it like a political Pascal's Wager - except it makes sense.

[starseed]

Just as a drive by comment- if you have never seen RoC used before, you cannot be too familiar with the Quebec sovereignty issue... Which is a pretty big issue, and a pretty big reason to be afraid of a Mulcair government.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by starseed

Just as a drive by comment- if you have never seen RoC used before, you cannot be too familiar with the Quebec sovereignty issue... Which is a pretty big issue, and a pretty big reason to be afraid of a Mulcair government.

That's fair enough. Sovereignty just hasn't been a hot button issue in so long, I guess. It's always an issue, but it seems like it's been simmering on the back burner for a long time now.

So as someone who is more familiar with the issue, what is a Mulcair government going to affect? From what I've read, young people in Quebec just don't care much for sovereignty these days. Is an NDP government going to somehow stoke the fire?

Does it simply boil down to their 50%+1 policy, or is it more than that?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by evman150

That's fair enough. Sovereignty just hasn't been a hot button issue in so long, I guess. It's always an issue, but it seems like it's been simmering on the back burner for a long time now.

So as someone who is more familiar with the issue, what is a Mulcair government going to affect? From what I've read, young people in Quebec just don't care much for sovereignty these days. Is an NDP government going to somehow stoke the fire?

Does it simply boil down to their 50%+1 policy, or is it more than that?

A major piece of news on the sovereignty front has been the absolute breaking of the BQ. Mulcair wants to stoke that fire again by pandering to the same issues that were a major problem in the 90s.

[rubecube]

Pretty trivial, but still getting some laughs out here.

[evman150]

Not only is it Atlantic, but apparently the photo was taken in England.

Classic.

[getbak]

Stock photos strike again!

[Harry Lime]

DRUMMONDVILLE, Que. — Stephen Harper says now is not the time to try new and untested economic strategies.
Against a background of plunging stock markets around the world, a dollar down by almost a cent and oil prices below $40 US a barrel, Harper is urging voters to stick with the Conservative economic plan.
The Canadian Press | August 24, 2015 1:16 PM ET

If he was willing to improve his plan to meet a changing economic landscape, he would probably get my vote. The fact that he won't is disturbing, coming from a PM with a background in economics. He's as much as admitting that the government is too big to roll with the punches and he won't change for purely political reasons.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

If he was willing to improve his plan to meet a changing economic landscape, he would probably get my vote. The fact that he won't is disturbing, coming from a PM with a background in economics. He's as much as admitting that the government is too big to roll with the punches and he won't change for purely political reasons.

I don't understand...what does the "conservative economic plan" have to do with low oil prices and Chinese and European (Greece) economic collapses?

Is there a plan by another party that would have prevented these things?

Or am I misunderstanding what you and this opinion piece are saying?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

If he was willing to improve his plan to meet a changing economic landscape, he would probably get my vote. The fact that he won't is disturbing, coming from a PM with a background in economics. He's as much as admitting that the government is too big to roll with the punches and he won't change for purely political reasons.

Is this similar to Notley refusing to change any of her policies?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle26057601/

Still thinking oil will rebound. Funny.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I don't understand...what does the "conservative economic plan" have to do with low oil prices and Chinese and European (Greece) economic collapses?

Is there a plan by another party that would have prevented these things?

Or am I misunderstanding what you and this opinion piece are saying?

Sure, let's say that they're all stuck with the global economic picture. What will Harper do regarding the oil industry? Frankly I have seen zero evidence of an action plan there, and that's more than a little concerning.

[LChoy]

Not sure to put this here, or in the polling thread.

The National Post has an interactive map of the Ridings, and how closely contested they were in the last election.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/where-your-vote-really-counts-check-out-the-closest-races-and-safest-seats-from-2011-with-our-interactive-map