Canadian federal election - 2015

[136or142]

NDP running sleazy attack line that Harper is a 'serious leader' while Justin Trudeau is not.

1.One of B.C.’s most renowned health researchers is backing Vancouver’s move to regulate marijuana dispensaries.

Dr. Julio Montaner is recognized globally for his work combating HIV/AIDS — something he says came with no help from the Conservative government’s policies.

“They are unable to have a mature, adult conversation about difficult issues, so it’s time for them to go.”

So, it seems I'm not the only one who believes that when serious issues comes up, Harper hides in a closet.

2.Do serious leaders pass laws they know will be declared unconstitutional precisely because they want them to be declared unconstitutional?

3.Do serious leaders make most of their cabinet little more than a focus group while the real power is held by 20 something kids straight out of university?

4.Do serious leaders put nearly all serious legislation in omnibus packages so that nobody has time to seriously scrutinize it and then insist it all pass in one vote?

5.Do serious leaders write legislation not based on evidence or even polls but based on what makes for good talking points?

6.Do serious leaders give people like Dean Del Mastro, Paul Calendra and Pierre Polievre important positions?

7.Do serious leaders jettison all their principles at the first turn?  (That said, I don't believe conservatives have any principles.)

8.Do serious leaders say things like "we don't condemn things just because we find them offensive in response to Charlie Hebdo, and then literally a week later, say people should not be allowed to cover their faces at citizenship ceremonies because "Canadians find it offensive."

Harper may look serious with the glasses and they graying hair, and he does often sound sober (at least as Prime Minister, he was "Angry Tom" on speed as opposition leader.)  But, there is nothing serious about him as Prime Minister except for his serious need to maintain power at any cost.

Justin Trudeau is Confucius, Moses and Abraham compared to Sleazy unserious Stephen.

[136or142]

Scott Andrews is PISSED and may run as an Indie Grit.

Dippers want Chow to run against Vaughan. What say you, Ontarians?

If a real journalist reported that New Democrats want Chow to run against Vaughan, I'd believe it.

[136or142]

Akin isn't a real journalist? LOL.

In other news, BOIE may start clawing back some money from Dippers.

There was nothing in that piece by Akin you posted a link to that suggested he was a real journalist.

[136or142]

Lawrence Martin refers to NDP as a a party of "blue collar grunts" and says they need a candidate with Bay St. credentials.  

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/team-ndp-has-a-big-hole-to-fill/article25327652/

BTW no study I've seen says that being a manual worker actually increases one's likelihood of voting NDP.

Lawrence Martin's article would have more credibility if he had actually named his source.  I simply highly doubt this story is true.

Nathan Cullen has been the Finance Critic for something like 3 years now. He's likely learned all he needs to know to be a decent Finance Minister.

In Regina, CCPA economist Erin Weir is running for the NDP.

In Ontario, M.Ps Craig Scott, like Murray Rankin, a law professor also owned an art gallery and Deputy Leader David Christopherson who was a highly respected Solicitor General with the Bob Rae government would likely also make capable Finance Ministers

Former Ontario NDP Attorney General, Natural Resources Minister and Provincial Party Leader Howard Hampton is also running.

In B.C, in addition to Nathan Cullen and the previously mentioned Murray Rankin, among the current M.Ps there are also Peter Julian who was the executive director of a couple major non profit organizations and Don Davies who was a labour lawyer and is now the International Trade Critic. Rankin, in addition to be an environnmental lawyer was also a senior partner at one of the top British Columbia law firms.

Among the new candidates (much less likely to be made Finance Minister) are Gord Johns who was the executive director of a small Chamber of Commerce and before that owned a number of ecobusinesses and Bob D'Eith a lawyer, who is the Executive Director of Music B.C and also owned a specialty record music label, though he may be more interested in the Canadian Heritage Portfolio.

A newcomer who likely would get a lot of consideration is Carol Baird Ellan who was the Chief Justice of the B.C Supreme Court and before being appointed to the bar was a tax lawyer, as was John Manley.

I'm less familiar with new NDP candidates in other provinces, but I'm not sure why it would be preferential for any government to have a Bay Street type as Finance Minister or why an economist with a union background as opposed to one with a business or maybe an academic background is any less qualified.

They couldn't be any less qualified than pretend economist Stephen Harper.

[136or142]

Although I have no doubt Nathan Cullen would make a decent Finance Minister he would be the least credentialed person in the position for at least the last 30 years.

1.Michael Wilson, in addition to be a corporate lawyer was also the Executive Vice President of Dominion Securities.

2.His successor, Don Mazankowski, owned a car dealership prior to getting into politics, but he was the most important member of the Mulroney government as he was known as the "Minister of Everything."

I forget who Kim Campbell's Finance Minister was.  Jean Charest?

3.Paul Martin, was both a lawyer and President of Canadian Steamship Lines.  He was also the son of a Liberal cabinet minister who ran three increasingly eccentric races for the Liberal Party leadership.

4.John Manley was, as I said above, a tax lawyer who was Industry Minister prior to being appointed to Finance.

5.Ralph Goodale was a lawyer but he was probably best known in Saskatchewan for being leader of the provincial Liberal Party during the 1986 election when Grant Devine, easily one of the 5 worst Premiers in Canada in the last 50 years, and Allan Blakeney, probably one of the 5 best Premiers in the last 50 years ran against each other.  Blakeney in a rather unfortunate ending to his elected political career, competed with Devine for who could make the most and most expensive election promises.  Goodale, conversely ran as a 'fiscal conservative.' 

After being the sole provincial Liberal to get elected to the legislature, Goodale quit to run again for the  Federal Liberals (he had previously been an M.P from 1974-1979) and narrowly lost in a 3 way race in Regina-Wascana.  Thinking his political career was over, he returned to law and became either a Vice President or Director with a large insurance firm.

James Flaherty had been a Finance Minister with both the Mike Harris and Ernie Eves governments, though he was dropped by Eves.

Joe "Everything that goes right in Canada is due to our government, while everything that goes wrong is due to foreign issues beyond our control" Oliver's background is well known. And hopefully he will also be quickly forgotten.

[136or142]

While we're talking about finance ministers, Adam, why is Justin recruiting an outsider when he has Goodale/Brison/McCallum/Freeland?

I don't believe Bill Morneau would be Finance Minister.

[136or142]

Insights West/Dogwood Initiative second round of polling in B.C ridings

Found via twtter link to pundit's guide.

https://dogwoodinitiative.org/media-centre/files/insights-west-polling-july?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonvazBZKXonjHpfsX56uskW6OylMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4ARcRnI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFTbfBMbNo1bgPWRk%3D

Candidates names were mentioned.

North Vancouver
Liberal 25%
Conservative 24%
NDP 19%
Green 11%

South Okanagan-West Kootenay
NDP 44%
Conservative 20%
Liberal 9%
Green 5%

Vancouver South
Liberal 27%
NDP 21%
Conservative 17%
Green 3%

West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country
Liberal 23%
Conservative 22%
NDP 19%
Green 9%

[136or142]

I doubt the Liberals will allow the Conservatives to continue governing. Their campaign will have been all about replacing Harper with a fresh start, and Justin will likely get defenestrated by his caucus who would be fearful of the same fate as their UK cousins. And besides, the Liberals and NDP will have both gained seats. There is no popular mandate for the only party which lost seats to govern, at least from the popular perspective.

In that case, I think it probably depends on where each party ends up in the seat count. If the Conservatives end up at 160+, it might be particularly nasty to dislodge them from power. I think the Conservatives will probably need to be held under 150 seats, regardless of where the other parties stand. Of course, this is all a big guess considering the uncharted territory we're in in terms of Canadian politics (and I don't dare underestimate the volatility of the average Canadian voter).

I think it would also depend on their share of the vote.  If the Conservatives get 150+ seats (you said 160) but only get 33% or so of the vote, it would be difficult for them to declare themselves the 'clear winner' even if they do win 40 seats or so more than the second party.

[136or142]

Seat count is what matters, period.

That's what Frank Miller said as well.

Given that it looks like Sleazy Stephie (AKA he who hides in closets) and his presstitute sychophants, especially their house organ the National Post, are going to trying make an issue out of Calm Tom saying that Quebec should be able to separate from Canada with a simple majority, the idea that Scumbag Stephen (AKA he who cowers in closets) should be able to claim 100% of the power with 33% or so of the vote seems more than a little hypocritical, although I'm sure his vile enablers like John Ivison will say it's all perfectly logical.  

If Hypocrite Harper (AKA he who frightens easily like the little boy he is) (AKA the pretend economist) is unable to secure a majority, the opposition and the press should press the Lieutenant Governor to say before the election that whoever is able to command a majority in the House will be given a chance to govern.

Horrible Harper, people who cower in closets just aren't leaders.
Sicko Stephen, his ethics were just visiting when he was in opposition.
Cynical Stephen, he's just not ready to know how decent humans behave.

[136or142]

Tbf I think criticising Harper for hiding in a closet when an armed gunmen is shooting is a bit low. He's elected to (ostensibly) run the country, not be a badass. I would probably piss myself if I thought someone was shooting at me.

Harper likes to portray himself as, if not a tough guy like Putin, then certainly as a 'strong leader.'  The strong leadership decision would have been to have been with his caucus as 'Angry' Tom and 'Just not Ready' Trudeau both were.

If Harper is going to make cheap shots against Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau and likely soon Thomas Mulcair, then if he wants to come across as more than the typical right wing thug he is who loves to dish it out but can't take it, then referring to him accurately as 'he who cowers in closets' is more than fair.

Cowering in a closet is the exact opposite of strong leadership, but it is normal for right wingers, who like to portray themselves as tough guys, but are, in fact, nothing more than frightened little babies.

[136or142]

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex.

Though the optics would be awkward and a little kneejerk if it were CPC with around 165 and NDP and Lib with 85 apiece.  Just saying.

It's still a loss of seats for the Conservatives. A Liberal/NDP coalition would enjoy a stronger popular mandate than it did in 2008 (http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/12/it-is-neck-and-neck-as-we-head-into-election-year/), especially since it will not involve the Bloc. And why will Justin risk a caucus revolt and support keeping Steve in 24 Sussex when, as leader of the only party which gained seats, he can move in himself?

That is, if one assumes that it's as cut and dried as "two left parties vs one right party".  *Which it isn't.*  And at 165-85-85 numbers, who's to say that the caucus revolt wouldn't be in the *other* direction?  I mean, to try and assemble a coalition out of *that* circumstance would be as airheadedly twerpy as things get: "oooh, we milquetoasts just *have* to get together to Stop Evil Evil Evil Stephen Harper" in the worst way.  And Harper would stomp the blazes out of such a Coalition Of The Wimps.

Of course, the "Coalition Of The Wimps-ness" reduces with every shave off Harper (i.e. it becomes more plausible in a 135-100-100 circumstance).  Though personally, I feel that even existing Con seat projections are a bit over-pumped-up through projection-from-2011 methodology, i.e. there's more "potential" in more seats than the opposition realizes...

The entire Liberal campaign will have been entirely about providing a safer-than-NDP choice to replace Harper. It's conceivable the Liberals will support a Conservative minority government with a more Red Tory-style leader (so they can claim to have removed Harper), but there aren't any left

Lisa Raitt, if she's reelected.

[136or142]

Copps was out of Cabinet by that point though. I remember that one well...

I believe the person who defeated her, Tony Valeri was in cabinet by that point.

[136or142]

Fiery Dipper calls for the death of Liberalism.

Ed Broadbent said the same thing back in 1988, there was a great deal of blowback then, but the Liberal Party has nowhere near the same level of hardcore supporters now than it did back then.

[136or142]

Finally at least someone is asking questions about the role of the Governor General in the case of a minority Parliament.  From the Georgia Straight.  I hope it's ok to post the whole story here, as it is just one part of a larger section (Straight Talk).

If not: http://www.straight.com/news/490381/close-federal-election-race-puts-spotlight-canadas-governor-general

By Carlito Pablo
With the fall federal election looking like a three-way race, an expert on constitutional law says a number of scenarios could unfold if no party wins a majority.

According to Margot Young, a professor in UBC’s Allard School of Law, Governor General David Johnston may do either of three things: one would be to grant the party with the most seats the opportunity to rule as a minority government; another would be to allow a coalition of parties that can muster more numbers than the party with the plurality; and a third would be to call another election.

Although Young noted that the third situation is a “very highly unlikely outcome”, it demonstrates the crucial role of the governor general in exceptional circumstances.

“That’s actually why people are saying [that] should that circumstance arise, you want to have someone with quite a bit of constitutional wisdom and savviness in the position of the governor general and that David Johnston might be such a person,” Young told the Straight in a phone interview about the former law professor and dean.

“It’s something the governor general has to consider and, obviously, will take constitutional legal advice about,” she continued. “The really important point here is that there are no formal rules that dictate how the governor general must behave in this circumstance.”

Exceptional circumstances also include a minority government getting defeated by a vote of confidence. The prime minister may ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament to pave the way for a new election, or a group of other parties can ask for the chance to form government.

“There’s always an opportunity for the opposition to say: ‘Hang on. Let’s not go to a general election. We can cobble together a coalition that will allow us to govern,’ ” Young said, describing this as a “completely legitimate outcome”.

That was why it was “so distressing” when the Conservatives prorogued Parliament in 2008 when it looked like the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois could constitute a coalition government. According to Young, it was one of those rare circumstances when the governor general—Michaëlle Jean, at the time—could have said no to the prime minister’s request to suspend parliament.

[136or142]

Forum's seat projection is just so bad. The NDP would get more than a 25 seat margin with a 7% victory, and no way would the Conservatives lead the Liberals by 30 seats if their vote share is equal. Mess.

Why not with the latter?  After all, the Cons have incumbent-seat advantage, and the Libs could very well now suffer from the same monkey-in-the-middle syndrome that eternally kept its UK namesake's seat totals down...

When most people decide they want to get rid of a government, it's often the incumbents who see the largest decline in their percent of the vote.  We saw this dramatically in the 1997 U.K election.

[136or142]

Mulcair interview.

Reading someone say "If you want Canada to become the next Greece, vote for the NDP" in French in the comment section was a bit of a surreal experience.

I believe he meant to say "If you want Canada to become the next Ancient Greece, the cradle of (renewed) Democracy, vote for the NDP"