Canada General Discussion: Trudeau II

[136or142]

Jean-François Fortin, founder and leader of Forces et Démocratie is leaving politics.

It's fitting as the voters left him.

[136or142]

The NS NDP leadership election will be on Feb 27th, and will use IRV.

Tl;dr of the linked article:

Burrill: Left wing socialist
Wilson: Dexter-wing, centrist
Zann: In between

Hardly got any coverage as they said it wouldn't be held until 2017.  Was the date just announced?  I would have assumed based on the lack of coverage (and likely lack of interest in the general public) that they'd have waited until at least May.

[136or142]

Not on the Nanos website yet:
http://www.news1130.com/2016/01/06/weak-economy-and-low-loonie-not-hurting-trudeau-governments-popularity/

"Around 60 per cent of people surveyed by Nanos Research say they’re remarkably happy with what Justin Trudeau’s government is doing. (I think 'remarkably happy' is the reporter Simon Druker's term and is not from Nanos.)

Just over that number feel Canada is moving in the right direction."

[136or142]

Mulcair is safe.

I said from the start that whether Mulcair stays or goes will be left up to him, and I don't know if he's decided on that (actually I said originally that the genuine 'socialists' in the NDP would likely try to get him to step down.)

I think he deserves another shot because while Einstein said "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity" going through two elections with the same things is not 'over and over.'

Nik Nanos said something like "Thomas Mulcair is well respected by the public and they had no problems with the NDP platform, the problem for him was just that they preferred Justin Trudeau as the alternative to Harper."

Mulcair needs to improve his debate performances according to the experts (although I personally thought he was fine in the debates), but if the Liberals are unpopular after four years, Mulcair could run on the exact same platform and get a completely different result.

[136or142]

Until the NDP can get a Corbyn or a Sanders type to replace Mulair, they will have to hold their noses a keep him.

The problem for the NDP is that the Liberals have shifted to the left in their attempts to prevent the right-drifting NDP from winning. It worked, so the NDP will have to go to the left in their rhetoric. It won't necessarily win them an election, but it will get some much needed momentum behind them, enough to be able to play king maker in a minority government if we ever get proportional representation.

Hopefully for the NDP's sake, the Liberal's will do as they always do, and govern on the right (no indication of this yet), and so won't have to go too far to the left in the next campaign.

The NDP strategists seem to think that the Liberals can campaign on the left because the public believes they have (some) credibility on economics and finance, but that their own party lacks this credibility.  An NDP running on the left would probably result in them getting 10-15% of the vote, depending on how the Liberals have governed and how far to the left they go.

Of course, you're the polling expert, not me, so I could be wrong.

[136or142]

If they run a left wing populist campaign, they would get more than 15% of the vote. If Corbyn and Sanders can do it...

Of course, if they just run a boring old school NDP campaign, then yes, expect the same results as the in the 1990s.

Such a populist approach is untested in modern Canadian politics, so don't trust my polling expertise on this one. I'm just observing what's going on in the rest of the Anglosphere.

Corbyn and Sanders haven't faced a general election yet.  Also, they are running in mostly two party nations (though I think Corbyn could bring the Liberal Democrats back from the (near) dead.

[136or142]

I'm certainly going to hope the Liberals govern left, even if that means the NDP won't have a shot in 2019. They should always try to always stay measurably to the left of the liberals in any situation. Left wing populism, as Hatman said, will get better results than being Liberal lite.

Well I'd rather all the parties propose realistic solutions to what they regard as genuine societal problems from their ideological perspective.

[136or142]

A quack was appointed to the Senate advisory board.

Even leaving out the people who believe in the literal word of the Bible for which there is zero evidence for, according to studies virtually every single person believes at least a few weird things.

Just because this woman is more open about her views does not necessarily make her any stranger than anybody else and should not be an automatic disqualification.

For instance, depending on the poll question, at the height of the '9/11 truther movement' a large number of Canadians believed in several of the conspiracy theories:

"A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39 percent of respondents either disagree or are unsure that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the U.S. government allowed the attacks to happen and 16 percent believe the U.S. government made the attacks happen."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories#Canada

I can't find the poll again, but a large number of Canadians also believed that the World Trade Center was brought down by a 'controlled demolition' and not as a result of the planes crashing into the buildings and the subsequent fire.

[136or142]

A quack was appointed to the Senate advisory board.

Even leaving out the people who believe in the literal word of the Bible for which there is zero evidence for, according to studies virtually every single person believes at least a few weird things.

Just because this woman is more open about her views does not necessarily make her any stranger than anybody else and should not be an automatic disqualification.

If right wingers can be criticized for harbouring creationists, it is perfectly reasonable to pick on lefties for harbouring hippy dippy types.

1.In any federal election there are always a fair number of Conservatives candidates with publicly stated religious views and I've never heard anybody say they shouldn't be allowed to run if some of those might be odd.

2.I never heard any demands on Stephen Harper to resign as Conservative leader when he signed a party fundraising letter (or more likely an automatic pen signed his name to it, but he's still responsible for it) that called Kyoto 'a socialist scheme.'

3.Most people refer to them as 'new agers' not 'hippy dippy types.'  I don't care for 'new age' thinking myself, but I tend to find that most people who hold these views are no more or less rational than anybody else on other things.  So, just because she has odd views in these areas does not automatically prove she is unable to choose people who would make capable senators as per Justin Trudeau's definition of 'capable.'

Also, unlike an M.P who vote on issues where their beliefs that the earth is 6,000 years old or something may influence their votes, I fail to see how this woman's 'new age' beliefs could effect her very limited role of helping to choose 'capable non partisan upstanding Canadians' as senators.

[136or142]

Elementary school shooting in SK, 5 dead, 2 wounded.

The new NDP M.P,  for the riding where this terrible incident occurred, Georgina Jolibois, was previously the mayor of the town where it occurred (La Loche.)  Hopefully she can provide some insight to the government.

[136or142]

Labeaume (Quebec City's mayor) is neutral on Energy East, saying he is for pipelines in general, but saying than Transcanada is incompetent.

This is the position I've been posting on Twitter and in news stories. I told Michelle Rempel that she shouldn't be a cheerleader for a private corporation and got a typical juvenile response from her (the Captain Pickard holding his head in frustration picture.)

There was a major CBC expose in 2011 of how either the government or civil servants in the government had covered up evidence of poor practices at TransCanada Pipelines.

I'm not surprised that idiot Terry Glavin is a mindless proponent of Energy East, but I was surprised both Lawrence Martin and even Rick Mercer support the Energy East as if this is a public work project and not a project that will primarily benefit for-profit corporations.

Andew Coyne seemed to be unhappy the government position is to wait for the NEB process to unfold and wants the Liberals to prejudge their report.

I don't think TransCanada is incompetent as much as they put short term profits ahead of long term interests, both their own long term interests and societal long term interests.

I'd support Energy East if all the senior executives and directors at TransCanada were fired.

[136or142]

New Alberta provincial poll from Mainstreet:

Decided voters:
WRP: 33%
PC: 31%
NDP: 27%
ALP: 5%
AP: 4%

What chances do the NDP have to get re-elected with these numbers?

Probably not great,  especially as their support is concentrated in the Edmonton region, but given that the next Alberta election isn't for a little more than three years, I'd say your question is a little premature.

[136or142]

Quebec's unemployment rate is lower than Alberta's for the first time in 30 years. Halifax is a solid 1.5% below Calgary. No schadenfreude for me though as my brother in law was just laid off there

Isn't Halifax a fairly wealthy city?

[136or142]

Pot will be legalized next year.

He's turning into a parody of an American liberal's dream leader.

Since when does implementing sensible policy make one a parody? 

[136or142]

[
Alberta NDP convention this weekend in Calgary.  According to Twitter, a resolution will be debated about whether the ABNDP should disaffiliate from the national party.

I really hope this passes. I'm not sure how this would work though.  According to my understanding of the Federal NDP rules, the Alberta NDP would have to change its name, and then the Federal NDP might be required to set up a new provincial Alberta NDP.

Hopefully I'm not right about the second part.  If the NDP lose the next B.C provincial election, I would hope and expect that a similar resolution would be presented at their first convention subsequent to that.

As a federal Liberal and (generally) provincial NDP supporter here in B.C, I really don't like it that only people who are members of the Federal NDP can be members of the provincial NDP.

You might argue in response 'that's just the way it goes' but I'd point out that if the NDP lose the next election, it would be five straight losses.

[136or142]

[
Alberta NDP convention this weekend in Calgary.  According to Twitter, a resolution will be debated about whether the ABNDP should disaffiliate from the national party.

I really hope this passes. I'm not sure how this would work though.  According to my understanding of the Federal NDP rules, the Alberta NDP would have to change its name, and then the Federal NDP might be required to set up a new provincial Alberta NDP.

Wouldn't it work similar to the BC Liberals and the Federal party?

My understanding is that the Federal NDP Constitution mandates that any provincial or civic organization affiliated with the Federal NDP, so that would include any party that uses the name "New Democrat" is automatically tied to Federal NDP rules, so that a person who wants to join the provincial NDP also has to join the federal NDP.

I was just guessing that if the Alberta NDP voted to dissociate with the Federal NDP that the Federal NDP would be obligated under its Constitution to start up a new Alberta NDP, as, for instance, there is no provincial Quebec NDP  political party.  But even if there is no such rule, I would certainly expect that left wing members of the NDP in other provinces and in Alberta would demand that the Federal NDP start a new NDP provincial party in Alberta.

I can only name one New Democrat who was a member of the Provincial NDP who was allowed to not be part of the Federal NDP.  Laurent Desjardins, a member of the legislature in Manitoba for St. Boniface was elected as a provincial Liberal, but when the NDP under Ed Schreyer won the 1969 election with 28 of 57 seats, he was allowed to join the provincial NDP and was named Minister of Health sometime in 1970 or so, while being allowed to remain a Federal Liberal.

There was also some high profile NDP candidate in Quebec in 1988 who was given a special Federal NDP only card so that he didn't have to join the Provincial Quebec NDP which at that time was a fringe party led by some fairly odd people.

I believe the Federal NDP also turned a blind eye towards Bernie Simpson here in B.C who was an MLA from 1991-1996 and who, I'm pretty sure at the time, was regarded to be a Federal Liberal supporter, which turned out to likely be accurate as he played a major role in the Sheila Copps leadership campaign when she ran against Paul Martin.

[136or142]

CPP expansion plan has been released. Relevant points:

1) CPP premium will go from 4.95% to 5.95%. Coverage will expand from 25% of pre retirement income to 33%

2) CPP coverage will expand from the first $55k of earnings to over $80k.

3) WITB will expand to compensate for premium increase and CPP premiums over $55k will be tax deductible. ORPP will be scrapped.

I like the plan personally. After the OAS debacle I was skeptical that the Liberals would produce a reasonable CPP refirm, so I'll give Trudeau credit where it's due.

I'd like it if all payroll taxes that businesses pay were eliminated.  Tax the dividends or capital gains instead.

I also don't see why there needs to be payroll taxes for CPP and EI.  No other 'entitlement' is paid for by a direct tax, except for the health tax here in B.C.  Even gas taxes that are supposedly earmarked for transit projects mostly go into general revenue.

I can understand the idea for payroll taxes on workers, as it's probably best to have a broad range of taxes so as to keep each rate as low as possible.  "The art of taxation..." said the French finance minister a few hundred years ago.

[136or142]

Nikki Ashton will not win, so it's plain ol' trolling to bring up her name. Might as well keep talking about Brad Trost for leader of the Conservatives. But that would be intellectually dishonest.

RB is right re Julian and Boulerice. I also keep mentioning Jagmeet Singh as well as a potential candidate. The NDP has some strong leadership potentials, they're just not household names yet.

I agree Nikki Ashton won't win, but I wouldn't discount Niki Ashton.

[136or142]

Headline "NDP still won the First Nations vote " is misleading, but what else to expect from Grenier? Article is about the reserve vote. I suspect the urban First Nations vote was more Liberal (look at Winnipeg Centre for example).

I don't think Grenier can be blamed for that as most of the time (if not all of the time) the writer of the article doesn't write the headline.  Maybe that's just for newspapers and not for television websites though.

[136or142]

I forgot about Thatcher, it's true there was some uncouth behavior when she died but that was all online, unless there was a conga line through the streets of Sheffield or Glasgow that wasn't reported in the US.

Maybe it's different for Trudeau because he or his father met Castro, not sure what the history is there. It's easy to criticize someone but if you had a relationship with them, in passing or not, the first response might not be to call him a murderous dictator, even if that's the truth.

It's not even that. I get that he's a world leader and he can't just go and damn Castro to hell. I'd be happy to settle for something mealy mouthed like President Obama's statement, but PM Trudeau's was a bridge too far.

Since when aren't eulogies 'Wasn't he a wonderful person, blah, blah, blah" nonsense?

It was the exact same thing when the vile POS Antonin Scalia died.

In my opinion, in terms of abusing their positions, Scalia was every bit as bad and as evil as Fidel Castro was.

Yet, for instance, here in the Atlas Forum nobody was allowed to write at the time of Scalia's death anything along the lines of: "Wonderful news that this POS Scalia is dead.  I know he's going to rot in Hell where he belongs for all eternity."

Trudeau's comments were nonsensical but the effusive praise about the pond scum Scalia were also equally nonsensical.

[136or142]

I forgot about Thatcher, it's true there was some uncouth behavior when she died but that was all online, unless there was a conga line through the streets of Sheffield or Glasgow that wasn't reported in the US.

Maybe it's different for Trudeau because he or his father met Castro, not sure what the history is there. It's easy to criticize someone but if you had a relationship with them, in passing or not, the first response might not be to call him a murderous dictator, even if that's the truth.

It's not even that. I get that he's a world leader and he can't just go and damn Castro to hell. I'd be happy to settle for something mealy mouthed like President Obama's statement, but PM Trudeau's was a bridge too far.

Since when aren't eulogies 'Wasn't he a wonderful person, blah, blah, blah" nonsense?

It was the exact same thing when the vile POS Antonin Scalia died.

In my opinion, in terms of abusing their positions, Scalia was every bit as bad and as evil as Fidel Castro was.

Yet, for instance, here in the Atlas Forum nobody was allowed to write at the time of Scalia's death anything along the lines of: "Wonderful news that this POS Scalia is dead.  I know he's going to rot in Hell where he belongs for all eternity."

Trudeau's comments were nonsensical but the effusive praise about the pond scum Scalia were also equally nonsensical.

That's right. I forgot when Scalia seized power in a bloody revolution, executed dissidents and put people in forced labour camps.

Good grief, this false equivalency is foolish.

For some reason you didn't highlight the first part of my sentence.  Could you please explain to me why you did  that.

Here is one article that may or may not be balanced "Is Scalia the most vile person in Washington"

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/05/is_scalia_the_most_vile_person_in_washington/

As the article correctly points out, he assisted in the undemocratic court majority that installed George W Bush as President and prevented a proper recount that would have more accurately determined the actual winner on the basis of reasons that the court clearly itself agreed were nonsense.  That alone showed that when given the opportunity he was every bit as undemocratic as Castro was.

He lied he was a 'Constitutional originalist' yet routinely cast that aside in order to make the ruling that he wanted whether he could find any justification for it in the Constitution or not.  

This included his rulings that would have let the death penalty stand for people who were innocent or intellectually disabled.  That's not the same as personally ordering the executions of dissidents, but if you have to argue that sort of thing on the basis of which is worse, I don't think you have a winning argument there.

He defended torture on the basis that he saw how well it worked in the fictional T.V show '24.'  That is neither a joke nor an unbalanced interpretation of what he said.  He also voted in favor of things that benefited private prisons that do, in fact, sometimes use prisoners as labor, which is obviously forced.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/21/its_time_to_end_antonin_scalias_prison_state_how_the_next_scotus_justice_could_help_end_mass_incarceration/

He routinely made racist, sexist and homophobic comments and clearly was a sexist, racist homophobe.

He dismissed legitimate concerns over conflict of interest.

He was complete scum and he completely abused his position and the world is a better place without him in it, just as the world is a better place without Fidel Castro in it.

In the context that I used, there was no false equivalency.  He didn't need to overthrow the government in order to abuse his office.

The man who Castro overthrew was a brutal dictator as well, btw, so there was no way to remove him from office without a bloody revolution in order to abuse his office.

He wasn't in a position to execute dissidents or put people into forced labor camps personally, but I think I've made a pretty decent case that he was every bit as vile as he could be in his position as Castro was in his position and also that he was as vile a human as Castro was.

So, no.  There was no false equivalency from me in the slightest.

[136or142]

I am scoffing Adam, because I think the idea of functional equivalency between positions is an absurd premise. What functional equivalence is there to setting up a concentration camp in other professions? There is none, because heads of state operate at a whole different level from the rest of us.

Try to apply utility theory.

[136or142]

Alberta poll

Tory: 39%
Wildrose: 25%
NDP: 14%!
Liberal: 14%

JUNK POLL!

Here is another one, with more sane numbers: http://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/embargoed-new-alberta-poll-shows-tight-race

Wildrose: 35
NDP: 31
PC: 24
Liberal: 4
AP: 3

Another poll has similar numbers to the poll cited here.  So, given the state of polling, if the election were held today, the Alberta Liberals would win every riding !

WRP: 34%
NDP: 27%
P.C: 27%
Lib: 5%
Other: 6%

http://www.insightswest.com/news/alberta-government-improves-on-energy-and-pipeline-management/

[136or142]

In retrospect, since the NDP went so downhill since Jack Layton's death, what is his legacy? Keep in mind that I know some NDP history, but I'm a little fuzzy on the details, not being Canadian or an Dipper (though I am in favor of them).

He extracted a 'better balanced budget' from the Paul Martin Liberal minority government.

[136or142]

The latest two polls for the Federal election have the Liberals crashing down like a meteor. What happened? Did that Fidel statement fiasco hurt Trudeau?

There is the Forum Poll, what is the other poll?