Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[FlameOn]

The mood in the Harper campaign is incredibly dark right now according to CTV reports, Harper has been lashing out at campaign workers and refusing interviews because of the prospects of losing to Trudeau "is a nightmare" to him.

You can see the look of rejection, of defeat on the faces of the campaign workers. They're talking about jobs that they're going to have to find after the election in the private sector because they know there will be no jobs for them.

And they're also having to contend with Stephen Harper, who I'm told is in a very dark mood lately. The last two days he's been snapping at workers and they say it's because the thought of losing to Justin Trudeau is like a nightmare to him.

And outside the campaign you're hearing a lot of Conservatives saying that he should not have run this time, that he let his ego get in the way like so many leaders before him.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=7...606864&binId=1

[polak]

Is it just me or does it seem like every single article about the election in the news is slanted towards one party.

It's so frustrating.

[Looch City]

^ If losing to Trudeau is a nightmare for Harper then it's a dream come true for the rest of Canada

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

^ If losing to Trudeau is a nightmare for Harper then it's a dream come true for the rest of Canada

Amen.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by polak

Is it just me or does it seem like every single article about the election in the news is slanted towards one party.

It's so frustrating.

It depends what you read

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I'm not a CPC supporter nor partisan in the least. In fact, I'll likely be voting for Kent Hehr.

Fair enough. My apologies.

I think you'd have to be blinded by ideology to not agree that Trudeau does not have an in depth understanding of economic and political issues. He leans on talking points much more than Harper or Mulcair, he continually makes foolish statements, has trouble thinking on his feet, and his educational background suggests he does not not have the same ability as the other two party leaders.

Yeah, I think there are areas he's obviously weaker than the other two on, but I think he did well for himself in the debates. By the same token, Harper has made a number of ridiculous statements during his time in office and even on this campaign, I'm thinking specifically of his comments regarding marijuana being "infinitely worse than tobacco," and missing and murdered indigenous women "not being on his radar." Mulcair has had his share of missteps too, so I don't think it's exclusive to Trudeau but he does seem to get the most attention for it, for whatever reason (I think a lot of it does have to do with the perceptions around his last name and "qualifications").

Having said that, it looks like there is a good chance the Liberals will form the next government and I think Trudeau can be an effective leader if he leans heavily on his team of advisers (which is fairly strong). However, I would have much preferred to put my vote towards a party led by someone like Martha Hall-Findlay or Marc Garneau rather than a man with a famous last name.

Well the Liberals tried to run effective leaders in the last two elections and they failed miserably, so it's hard to blame them for trying to win with youth and charisma this time.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

^ If losing to Trudeau is a nightmare for Harper then it's a dream come true for the rest of Canada

I think it's more of an ego thing for Harper than it is him being worried for the sake of Canadians.

[nik-]

You're suggesting Ignatieff was an effective leader?

I guess leading your party to a ####ing drubbing is an effective leader.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nik-

You're suggesting Ignatieff was an effective leader?

I guess leading your party to a ####ing drubbing is an effective leader.

Yeah, bad description. I meant more "qualified" leaders.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, bad description. I meant more "qualified" leaders.

I understood your point.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by heep223

Isn't someone's background, education and experience vital for any job including in politics?

Unless the job involves the need of technical skills that can only be gained through specific training (like engineering, or doctors), then no, not really. And I would argue it particularly DOESN'T matter in politics. At it's heart, it's supposed to be a collection of people from all backgrounds to have the most people represented as possible. Who each part chooses as their leader is generally a reflection of the party's values. They, as a person, can not be experts in all areas, and are built on the strength of the people they surround themselves with. We know that Trudeau has a pretty experienced and level-headed group surrounding him, as by the admission of even the most conservative of supporters. The people who surround Harper, many of whom have be exposed as bigots and even criminals, leave much to be desired. Frankly, if someone walked out of the woods with no formal education, but had policy ideas I agree with, a budget proposal that makes sense, and can back up their claims and ideas with proper data and evidence, then they would have my vote.

So, no, I really don't think it matters much at all and don't think it should. Your leader can't be an expert in all or even most fields. That's why we have cabinet ministers designated to run their areas of expertise.

It also depends on what "scares" you. Someone from an education background like Trudeau may scare pro-business people. Someone with the past of Harper may scare people with...feelings and human emotions.

There is no right or wrong in politics, just whether or not you agree with someone. Vote along your personal ideologies, but that doesn't make them right, or the opinions of the majority.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Anyway - anyone want to post the proposed marginal rates, combined with AB rates? If you have time and easy access to the data that is. Or if someone just knows where I could find it for myself?

Here's the Liberal plan with existing combined rates in parentheses where they're different:

Personal Amount - $44,701: 25%

$44,701-$89,401: 30.5% (currently 32%)

$89,401-$125,000: 36%

$125,000-$138,000: 36.5%

$138,000-$150,000: 39.5%

$150,000-$200,000: 39.75%

$200,000-$300,000: 43% (currently 40%)

$300,000+: 43.25% (currently 40.25%)


So basically a 1.5 percentage point reduction in the $44K-89K bracket and a 3 percentage point increase in the $200K+ bracket.

[nik-]

So lowering the taxes of approximately 6 million people 1.5% and raising it on 500 thousand people 3%.

It's definitely popular, but it not going to balance.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

The mood in the Harper campaign is incredibly dark right now according to CTV reports, Harper has been lashing out at campaign workers and refusing interviews because of the prospects of losing to Trudeau "is a nightmare" to him.



http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=7...606864&binId=1

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by opendoor

$44,701-$89,401: 30.5% (currently 32%)

MOD EDIT: Don't.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Justine has just defined the middle class as the above.

[nik-]

I think that's a pretty common definition range.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

^ If losing to Trudeau is a nightmare for Harper then it's a dream come true for the rest of Canada

You don't speak for all of us, to me putting Trudeau into the Prime Ministers Chair is a bigger nightmare.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by nik-

So lowering the taxes of approximately 6 million people 1.5% and raising it on 500 thousand people 3%.

It's definitely popular, but it not going to balance.

Did we ever get numbers/estimates suggesting net taxation would be the same?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by iggy city

^ if losing to trudeau is a nightmare for harper then it's a dream come true for some of us in canada

fyp