So maybe the Tommunist Manifesto earlier this week wasn't enough to dissuade potential NDP voters (personally I have no idea how). Now we have an NDP candidate who thinks we should open the constitution. First to deal with the senate, which is already bad, but also to deal with the Niqab because he doesn't think that religious freedom should be enshrined there.
Didn't the Conservatives already pledge a bunch of money for that?
Indeed they have, but the NDP have not. So, if choosing between NDP and Liberals, it's a point for the Liberals.
A question worth posing though is: why, if the Liberals are going to double infrastructure spending, was their big announcement for Calgary at most a 3.3% increase from what the Conservatives have pledged?
I'd like to see them either show that the infrastructure needs that the doubling are going address are stronger elsewhere in the country, or announce something that would increase Calgary's funding. Otherwise, it appears that the infrastructure proposal becomes another wealth transfer out of Calgary.
Sorry Eldrick but your wrong, The definition of vote buying is "A sitting government rigging their tax structure after 5 years to insure that every childs parent will get a $60-0 cheque on the eve on an election call."
The fact that the other parties did not have the opportunity to follow just stresses the fact that it was an attempt to buy the good will of voters, literally, with cash.
Billions in construction announcements is more along the lines of a standard campaign promise, where voters get to take it with a grain of salt, and the opposition gets to hammer him on the tax and debt implications of the policy
Sorry Eldrick but your wrong, The definition of vote buying is "A sitting government rigging their tax structure after 5 years to insure that every childs parent will get a $60-0 cheque on the eve on an election call."
The fact that the other parties did not have the opportunity to follow just stresses the fact that it was an attempt to buy the good will of voters, literally, with cash.
Billions in construction announcements is more along the lines of a standard campaign promise, where voters get to take it with a grain of salt, and the opposition gets to hammer him on the tax and debt implications of the policy
Yeah. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.
Just because any policy doesn't affect me doesn't render it non relevant.
It's not the policy itself, imo, but the timing. Takes affect Jan 1, but we will lump sum pay you in July. Reeks of electioneering, no doubt.
But please don't discount the rest of the 'vote buying' going on, thanks. The promise of $15 min wage and $7 daycare buys a lot of votes while not necessarily doing anything good for the nation.
The best example of buying votes I'd seen happened in Ontario discussed earlier in this thread. The government started to building power plants in two Liberal ridings, these were wildly unpopular in those ridings and they were likely going to lose them. Suddenly they cancelled the two plants and moved them to ridings they had no shot of winning of winning at a giant cost to taxpayers.
This is a good example of what ISN'T vote buying. It's certainly calculated behavior designed to serve constituencies that you think might be persuaded to vote for you, but it isn't buying votes. This happens all the time on all kinds of scales - for example, a federal party running on providing higher depreciation rates on oilsands projects while not providing those rates to manufacturing would benefit Alberta at the expense of Ontario, but it wouldn't be "buying votes".
Again: the only thing that is buying votes involves the party saying, "elect us and we'll give you money". The UCCB is vote buying: you get a cheque in the mail.
Tax credits are basically free money, you can argue that targeted credits like the HRTC are vote buying (though it has other effects like stimulating trades involved in home renos).
Policy decisions always involve spending money in one area, instead of another area. They are the practice of campaigning on a platform that you are free to disagree with on (among others) the basis that it benefits someone else and not you. But they are not vote buying.
A $15 minimum wage is a policy decision and is not vote buying either. Jesus, it's like people want to use that tag on everything that will cause someone ELSE to vote for a party they don't support...
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
So maybe the Tommunist Manifesto earlier this week wasn't enough to dissuade potential NDP voters (personally I have no idea how). Now we have an NDP candidate who thinks we should open the constitution. First to deal with the senate, which is already bad, but also to deal with the Niqab because he doesn't think that religious freedom should be enshrined there.
Again: the only thing that is buying votes involves the party saying, "elect us and we'll give you money". The UCCB is vote buying: you get a cheque in the mail.
Tax credits are basically free money
(snip)
A $15 minimum wage is a policy decision and is not vote buying either.
Let me get this straight....
The UCCB, tax credits, and a minimum wage hike all result in certain segments of the population having more money in their pockets as a result of a Government decision, but...
- the UCCB is "vote buying" because it is the Government directly giving people money
- a tax credit is vote buying because the Government is directly not taking people's money, and
- a minimum wage hike is a policy decision because it is someone else being forced to give the extra money?
The UCCB, tax credits, and a minimum wage hike all result in certain segments of the population having more money in their pockets as a result of a Government decision, but...
- the UCCB is "vote buying" because it is the Government directly giving people money
- a tax credit is vote buying because the Government is directly not taking people's money, and
- a minimum wage hike is a policy decision because it is someone else being forced to give the extra money?
Is that your belief?
Yes there is a fundamental difference between a campaign promise and a $1200 cheque in the mail on the eve of the writ. I'm not saying the there isn't something wrong with promising the sell the cow the milk and the farm when you know you can't sell them all, but literally rigging policy so people get a cheque in the mail is on a different level.
All of that said, I have two young children so naturally I am a fan of the credit, even if I don't agree with the implementation.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
The UCCB, tax credits, and a minimum wage hike all result in certain segments of the population having more money in their pockets as a result of a Government decision, but...
- the UCCB is "vote buying" because it is the Government directly giving people money
- a tax credit is vote buying because the Government is directly not taking people's money, and
- a minimum wage hike is a policy decision because it is someone else being forced to give the extra money?
Is that your belief?
Close - I actually think the tax credit thing is pretty debatable. Really, if my policy involves sending you a cheque, the message is, "vote for me and I'll give you $100". If I give you a tax credit, the message is, "vote for me and I will spend government money on incentivizing people to do X, because I think if more people do X, it will be good for Canada". The second is more policy-based.
A minimum wage hike doesn't resemble any form of a government handout - it doesn't even directly involve government spending.
If you dilute the concept of "vote buying" to "any government policy that results in some people getting more money than they otherwise would", or as some apparently would have it, "any government policy that involves spending public money on something that will appeal to a certain group of people (e.g. people who take trains)", it will apply to probably 90+% of campaign promises and the term becomes utterly meaningless.
As usual, a buzzphrase comes about with a negative connotation and people start using it to describe everything proposed by the parties they don't like.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Honestly I don't see them winning again, at some point Canadians have got to say enough. Sometimes a functioning democracy trumps the perception of a strong economy. I'd be shocked if they got in again.
Have to agree with Fuzz, they are making it really difficult to support the conservatives, as a win will be read as affirmation of their policies.
On the news today was also a piling on of the migrant crisis in Europe. The conservatives offered to take in 10000, and the NDP countered with 25000 and claiming that the refugee sysytem is broken.
The problem is that many of the migrants wouldn't qualify under the current system, as few of them do under the systems of most European countries. The migrants arn't falling down and kissing the ground of the first safe country that can take them, they are selectively choosing based on personal economic choices, blurring the line between refugees and immigrants. People work for years to become a citizen of Canada, and this is opening a hornets nest for the purposes of a political soundbite.
I didn't hear the Liberals response, but the other two parties are forcing me toward the Liberals with their reactionary politicking. Please don't make me vote liberal.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
For me, this is ultimately the issue that's driving me to take an anyone-but-conservative approach with my vote. It's just unthinkable in this era that not only is the federal government intentionally moving away from data-driven decision-making, they're doing their damnest to make it impossible for other organizations and levels of government to make data-driven decisions.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to octothorp For This Useful Post:
For me, this is ultimately the issue that's driving me to take an anyone-but-conservative approach with my vote. It's just unthinkable in this era that not only is the federal government intentionally moving away from data-driven decision-making, they're doing their damnest to make it impossible for other organizations and levels of government to make data-driven decisions.
This is also my #1 election issue. If I lived in a riding where it's a 2-way race between the Conservatives and the NDP, I'd hold my nose and vote NDP (a party I strongly dislike) solely because of Harper's war against rational, data-based decision-making.
For me, this is ultimately the issue that's driving me to take an anyone-but-conservative approach with my vote. It's just unthinkable in this era that not only is the federal government intentionally moving away from data-driven decision-making, they're doing their damnest to make it impossible for other organizations and levels of government to make data-driven decisions.
I was explaining this very problem to my 85-year old grandmother this morning, and how it may not seem like a big deal for the older generations, but essentially taking away the information we need to make educated decisions in this country is appalling, especially in an age where corporations large and small are relying more and more on the analytics and "big data" that is logged and recorded in their every day businesses. Combine this with the issues in bill C-51 and the seemingly constant muzzling of Canadian scientists and progressive research, and you can see how the government is selectively choosing what to focus on and picking their battles without including Canadians. This is a very serious issue that should not be swept under the rug.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ozy_Flame For This Useful Post:
This is infuriating. I've experienced it first hand at work. Politicians and managers making asinine decisions to either "save money" or "increase efficiency" that make NO sense and actually hinders (if not completely disrupts) ongoing research efforts (and I'm not even in climate science). The Government of Canada under the Conservatives has moved so far away from science-backed and evidence-based decision making that it's not even funny. And it's plain as day now. Just look at most of their decisions; any logical person would say, "...that doesn't make sense...", and she'd be right.
Now that we are beginning to fully understand the extent of the damage that the Conservatives have done, we as Canadians should feel cheated. I'm embarrassed for this country, and quite frankly, feel less safe in Canada than I ever have in my life.
