Federal Politics 2015 Thread

[Bownesian]

I wonder if the idea is to force Trudeau to commit to the other debates that the NDP and Conservatives are attending:

Globe and Mail - Economy - Date not announced
Monk School - Foreign Policy - Date not announced
TVA - General (french) - October 5
(One more in French TBA)

[Bownesian]

To follow up on that thought, I really am not at all impressed by how Trudeau handles himself in interviews. I am much more impressed with Mulcair as a debater (not knowing the corporate tax rate on the CBC radio show notwithstanding).

Maybe they are trying to shoehorn Trudeau into lots of opportunities to have another "whip out our CF18's to show how big they are" dumb-dumb moment. It could be the NDP think that they have a route to a majority by debating the current PM to look prime ministerial, letting Justin have lots of chances to shoot himself in the foot and taking ownership of the progressive vote that way.

[killer_carlson]

From this perspective it shows the NDP might be rubbing their hands together and excitedly as the PCs at the thought of getting Trudeau having to talk substance on his feet, without his handlers intervening with "What Justin really meant to say was"

Getting Trudeau to more events where he'll have to answer each of Mulclair, Duceppe, and Harper might play right into their hands of finishing the Liberals off.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I wonder if the idea is to force Trudeau to commit to the other debates that the NDP and Conservatives are attending:

Globe and Mail - Economy - Date not announced
Monk School - Foreign Policy - Date not announced
TVA - General (french) - October 5
(One more in French TBA)

This is another reason why not attending the consortium debates doesn't make sense. The economy and foreign policy are topics that play to what the public believes are Harper's strengths. If I were the NDP, I'd be wanting to focus on the environment, social policies, treatment of veterans, etc.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by octothorp

ThreeHundredEight has a solid breakdown of why that Mainstreet poll that is now pulling the Conservatives up in all the poll aggregators should be looked at skeptically: it's 18-34 numbers are massively at odds with every other pollster out there, with the Conservatives nearly 20 points higher than any other poll before of since.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/201...ronto-and.html

Yeah, you can see a better breakdown of all the polls here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives...x.html#sources

That Mainstreet poll definitely looks like an outlier, but the Conservatives still made an impressive jump in the past week. The bad news for them though is that it's been coming at the expense of the Liberals and not the NDP.

[Bownesian]

I would think that the NDP have lots of strength among young progressives on Foreign Policy/Security Policy.

The Liberals have been so scattered (no to the mission in Iraq/Syria, yes to the security provisions) that they should have weakness there among progressive voters (and also blue-Grit/red Tory swing voters). While I don't agree with the NDP policy of military disengagement, I think that the kind of approach the NDP espouse is popular with that demographic.

I think with the Economy, the NDP will be able to talk plenty about environmental issues like pipelines and social issues like minimum wages, where their views also have appeal among the demographic they are targeting.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Jacks

NDP are skipping the consortium debates also now.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ates-1.3175720

This skipping of the debates by any party is a bad move in my view. If , like me, you view the election as us hiring a new government, then skipping a debate is the equivalent of skipping a job interview. I know if I am hiring and one of the applicants can't be bothered to show up for an interview, then that applicant will surely not get hired.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by John Doe

This skipping of the debates by any party is a bad move in my view. If , like me, you view the election as us hiring a new government, then skipping a debate is the equivalent of skipping a job interview. I know if I am hiring and one of the applicants can't be bothered to show up for an interview, then that applicant will surely not get hired.

We'll be having more debates this time than we've ever had before. Only difference is that CBC/CTV won't be in charge of them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

I would think that the NDP have lots of strength among young progressives on Foreign Policy/Security Policy.

The Liberals have been so scattered (no to the mission in Iraq/Syria, yes to the security provisions) that they should have weakness there among progressive voters (and also blue-Grit/red Tory swing voters). While I don't agree with the NDP policy of military disengagement, I think that the kind of approach the NDP espouse is popular with that demographic.

I think with the Economy, the NDP will be able to talk plenty about environmental issues like pipelines and social issues like minimum wages, where their views also have appeal among the demographic they are targeting.

Yeah, but the problem with targeting that demographic is that they often don't bother to come out and vote on election day.

[Smartcar]

I just finished responding to the first IVR poll I ever got where I didn't hang up as soon as the recorded message came on (I think I've hung up on 30+ over the years). I figured if all the people like me had actually responded at any point in the last 5 years maybe things would have turned out differently. This will be a very important election.

[Harry Lime]

I didn't want to eat up space in whatever is happening in the Federal Polling thread. I have to admit that most of what the candidates are arguing over day to day only effects me in one way, and that's eventual money coming out of my wallet, as I don't fit into any of the campaign promise demographics.

This was on the CBC website today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...tate-1.3260266

A new report on real estate trends says foreign investors may start looking beyond Toronto and Vancouver and begin targeting markets in Montreal and Saskatoon in the coming year.

The gist of the story is that the boom in foreign residential real estate ownership began in Toronto and Vancouver, moved to Calgary and Edmonton, and now is expanding again to other Canadian cities. Many countries have very strict rules to prevent this kind of speculation from happening in the residential sector.

Is it time to look into a law that forces a residential homeowner to either be a Canadian citizen or live in Canada for the majority of the year?

This isn't going to be addressed during this election, because we are being told that what people wear when their picture is being taken is more important. I am curious as to whether there is an interest in a more protectionist route on a federal level, in certain industries.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I didn't want to eat up space in whatever is happening in the Federal Polling thread. I have to admit that most of what the candidates are arguing over day to day only effects me in one way, and that's eventual money coming out of my wallet, as I don't fit into any of the campaign promise demographics.

This was on the CBC website today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...tate-1.3260266

The gist of the story is that the boom in foreign residential real estate ownership began in Toronto and Vancouver, moved to Calgary and Edmonton, and now is expanding again to other Canadian cities. Many countries have very strict rules to prevent this kind of speculation from happening in the residential sector.

Is it time to look into a law that forces a residential homeowner to either be a Canadian citizen or live in Canada for the majority of the year?

This isn't going to be addressed during this election, because we are being told that what people wear when their picture is being taken is more important. I am curious as to whether there is an interest in a more protectionist route on a federal level, in certain industries.

It absolutely needs to be addressed. I'm not sure what the solution is, but we're heading towards a housing crisis if this keeps up.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It absolutely needs to be addressed. I'm not sure what the solution is, but we're heading towards a housing crisis if this keeps up.

It's tough because it's so hard to implement fairly.

How do you protect a market like Vancouver from foreign buying without risking catering the investments of resident homeowners? Lots of people have saved up hard and are mortgaged to the hilt in the LMD. They can't afford their property values stagnating or dropping 20%.

In the end, I think we have to accept that Vancouver and Toronto are part of the international real estate market and that's just it. Not many young families can buy in downtown London or Shanghai either.

As for foreign investment creep into smaller cities, I think it will be diffuse and unlikely to have a major impact in all but a few select places. And even then, it'll be the high end market getting hit first. Saskatoon's real estate valuations are industry driven more than anything. I don't see how it escapes normal market fluctuation. I expect it'll remain the same for most Canadian cities for a long time.

[Harry Lime]

The point is that this is not normal market fluctuation. Demand driven through speculation puts pressure on the residents of each city, that eventually prices them out of the market entirely. Not long ago, the impact of foreign residential investment was said to be contained to Vancouver and Toronto, but we have seen expansion to Calgary and Edmonton (not to mention resort towns), and now into Saskatoon and Montreal. This is an issue becoming a national concern very quickly.

Yes, major impact.

As for cratering home value in places like Vancouver, there is no doubt that the market is overvalued right now. There are ways to ease prices into normalcy without cratering. How about doubling or tripling property tax for foreign residential investment across the country, to slow down investment and help the infrastructure of the cities themselves directly?

One potential issue that we can get ahead of, instead of reacting to, that was a throw away mention in this article...

PwC says foreign investors are also likely to start snatching up medical clinics and other real estate in the health-care sector, which is expected to benefit from Canada's large population of aging baby boomers.

... is this an issue that we want to be dealing with in an already strained health care sector?

[GGG]

Rent has a value which follows supply and demand. So if real estate is too expensive rent and bank the difference. If rent supports the price then it's real demand and not the foreign investment boogeyman.

Saskatoons real estate is driven by the cost of new housing which is driven by the cost of labour which is driven by the labour rate in Fort Mac.

If rents don't support the housing price don't buy.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Jacks

We'll be having more debates this time than we've ever had before. Only difference is that CBC/CTV won't be in charge of them.

The debates were an interesting experiment. The first ones were awful, the last two were pretty decent. It's a travesty though that hardly anyone saw any of them. Right about now is when we would normally be having the consortium debate which typically reached 1/3 of the population. It would be an excellent opportunity for each leader to state his or her case with a week to go in a long campaign. Tell me again why this would have been a bad thing?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The debates were an interesting experiment. The first ones were awful, the last two were pretty decent. It's a travesty though that hardly anyone saw any of them. Right about now is when we would normally be having the consortium debate which typically reached 1/3 of the population. It would be an excellent opportunity for each leader to state his or her case with a week to go in a long campaign. Tell me again why this would have been a bad thing?

You know, Consortium = CBC = bad.

And the ones they had reached more people. You know, internet. Or so I was told.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by John Doe

You know, Consortium = CBC = bad.

And the ones they had reached more people. You know, internet. Or so I was told.

I think they gave access to more people. I doubt they reached more.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

I didn't want to eat up space in whatever is happening in the Federal Polling thread. I have to admit that most of what the candidates are arguing over day to day only effects me in one way, and that's eventual money coming out of my wallet, as I don't fit into any of the campaign promise demographics.

This was on the CBC website today.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...tate-1.3260266

The gist of the story is that the boom in foreign residential real estate ownership began in Toronto and Vancouver, moved to Calgary and Edmonton, and now is expanding again to other Canadian cities. Many countries have very strict rules to prevent this kind of speculation from happening in the residential sector.

Is it time to look into a law that forces a residential homeowner to either be a Canadian citizen or live in Canada for the majority of the year?

This isn't going to be addressed during this election, because we are being told that what people wear when their picture is being taken is more important. I am curious as to whether there is an interest in a more protectionist route on a federal level, in certain industries.

Just let put the interest rates up to 6 or 7% problem solved,

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I think they gave access to more people. I doubt they reached more.

By most accounts they reached a tenth of the audience or less. As predicted