Support NeoGAF

[Tiktaalik]

I don't know, the Liberals are pretty clear that they'd have a new voting system established within 18 months of taking office. Obviously promises can be broken, but that's laid out in concrete enough terms that it seems like there'd be real blowback if they didn't do it.

I was a teen when the Liberal Party of the 90s was in power and I recall them constantly promising this goodie and that goodie, and then never implementing any of it and instead governing with a centre-right agenda. The economy was fine so they dodged a lot of criticism for not really delivering on their policies, but I remember they broke their promises, and so it's been hard for me to shake the stereotype that the Liberals are a party that runs for election from the left, then when in power governs from the right. At this point I'm an 30 year old dude talking on a video game forum (!) so I dunno if anyone else is old enough to remember those days, but anyway that's where my deep skepticism of the party comes from.

 

[Silexx]

Probably the most interesting part of the debate in my opinion by far was when Trudeau went after Mulcair on the NDP's stance on the Clarity Act, as that's a real, significant difference between the Liberal and NDP parties and it had the two opposition leaders arguing amongst themselves instead of the usual Harper pileon.

This issue is a bit of a political inside baseball one and I'm not sure anyone outside of Ottawa and Quebec really cares about it. What did the GAFers that watched think? Did this change your opinion of the parties or leaders or is it pretty irrelevant compared to other issues?

The CBC At Issue panel discussed the background of the issue a bit and gave their insight. From what they say it's clear why Mulcair has the position he has and Trudeau the other. It was interesting to me to know that Mulcair's position is the one supported by the entire Quebec National Assembly, including the federalist Quebec Liberals. This is consistent with what I've read that the Clarity Act is not at all popular in Quebec. I can understand why Trudeau is taking the other side, but he badly needs to win Quebec seats in order to win this election, and I'm not sure if this is an issue enough for English Canada to offset the losses in Quebec.

Actually, I think the numbers in Quebec show that there may be too much ground to make up in order to make a dent (save for their usual strongholds in Montreal). What Trudeau was actually doing was appealing to Ontario voters where he has a lot more to gain.

 

[gutter_trash]

That's fine and that's the point. People vote for who they want to represent them in parliament, and then MPs have to collaborate and work together to pass legislation.

I am against regional parties, propping up region nationalism would send is backwards to the backwater. A threat to unity

Actually, I think the numbers in Quebec show that there may be too much ground to make up in order to make a dent (save for their usual strongholds in Montreal). What Trudeau was actually doing was appealing to Ontario voters where he has a lot more to gain.

it`s 100% Mulcair's fault for recently stating this year that he would repeal the Clarity Act.

He forgets what happened in the riding of Chomeday where 13% of the votes were rejected on Referendum night... hmmmm that +1 vote?
+the ambiguous ballot Question to boot

5426 votes in Chomeday were tossed into the garbage.

 

[Pedrito]

I always wonder if the people acting as background decoration each time a leader makes a speech are getting paid? Do you get extra money if you're a visible minority?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Probably the most interesting part of the debate in my opinion by far was when Trudeau went after Mulcair on the NDP's stance on the Clarity Act, as that's a real, significant difference between the Liberal and NDP parties and it had the two opposition leaders arguing amongst themselves instead of the usual Harper pileon.

They made themselves look stupid as I found myself agreeing with Harper on the Clarity Act: no one cares, why bring it up.

It's Quebec's choice what they want. It's not Ontario's choice, nor do we want it to be our choice. No one wants to open that can of worms. The topic is more appropriate for the French debate.

 

[Azih]

I am against regional parties, propping up region nationalism would send is backwards to the backwater. A threat to unity

Then you should be against FPTP and AV which give advantages to regional parties and hurt parties that have broader, cross national, support.

In FPTP and AV, it's not how much support you have that matters, it's how your support is concentrated that does. That helps regional parties and hurts parties with broad support like the Greens.

 

[Tabris]

Yeah, I would rate the debate as follows:

1) May - She was so impressive, I want her as my PM
2) Trudeau - Impressive closing comments. He also didn't back down at all against Harper. If it wasn't for his Bill C-51 stance, I may have more faith in him.
3) Mulclair - Came off a bit weak in this debate which would be a worry re: him representing Canada on international stage but he has the best platform stances.
4) Mr."Everything is fine" Harper - He doesn't have a plan to do anything, and came off like everything's fine.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Actually, I think the numbers in Quebec show that there may be too much ground to make up in order to make a dent (save for their usual strongholds in Montreal). What Trudeau was actually doing was appealing to Ontario voters where he has a lot more to gain.

Yes I agree with this. The problem is that even if he does phenomenally well in Ontario, he still gets third place if he does not get break out success in other areas of the country. He may be writing off Quebec, but he needs Quebec to win. I'm deeply skeptical whether anyone in the West cares about the Clarity Act at all, and so this doesn't seem like issue that can carry the party out of 3rd place in BC or get them any seats at all on the Prairies.

 

[Crazylegs]

A few random thoughts about the debate:

Harper - Obviously believes what he's saying, even when a lot of it is BS being presented as fact. He held his own (loved his response re: Clarity Act), which is not surprising. Obviously he's running on his perceived achievements since he was offering nothing new in terms of policy or programs.

May - She knew exactly what she had to do and she did it. She's smart and held her own. She's not running for PM, she's running for more Green seats. And she knows it will be tough to win the minds of those who do vote, so she has to go after the 40% who never vote.

Mulcair - Would have liked to see more Angry Tom, but I think he did well. He was in control of his facts and he was the ONLY leader last night who offered any specifics of what he would do (whether you agree or disagree). He got nailed on the Clarity Act, of course, and he looked a bit silly - but I suspect he knows exactly what message he needs to send to Quebecers to preserve NDP seats there.

Trudeau - I must have seen a different debate because in no way would categorize him as a winner last night. He seems like a good guy - very earnest and passionate. But he said absolutely zilch about what he would do as PM. Vague platitudes about helping the middle-class have no substance. Listening to him last night made it clear (to me) that his party backroom is filled with the same Mushy Middle Liberals of old. It's a shame.

From my perspective, I thought May and Mulcair came away winners, with Harper a close second. Trudeau was dead last performance-wise.

 

[Silexx]

Yes I agree with this. The problem is that even if he does phenomenally well in Ontario, he still gets third place if he does not get break out success in other areas of the country. He may be writing off Quebec, but he needs Quebec to win. I'm deeply skeptical whether anyone in the West cares about the Clarity Act at all, and so this doesn't seem like issue that can carry the party out of 3rd place in BC or get them any seats at all on the Prairies.

It's not that he's writing off Quebec, but he clearly believes that he has more to gain in Ontario by staking out a staunch support of the Clarity Act rather than try and appease the Quebec masses.

 

[gutter_trash]

Then you should be against FPTP and AV which give advantages to regional parties and hurt parties that have broader, cross national, support.

In FPTP and AV, it's not how much support you have that matters, it's how your support is concentrated that does. That helps regional parties and hurts parties with broad support like the Greens.

I'm for preferential ranked ballots

 

[Silexx]

A few random thoughts about the debate:

Harper - Obviously believes what he's saying, even when a lot of it is BS being presented as fact. He held his own (loved his response re: Clarity Act), which is not surprising. Obviously he's running on his perceived achievements since he was offering nothing new in terms of policy or programs.

May - She knew exactly what she had to do and she did it. She's smart and held her own. She's not running for PM, she's running for more Green seats. And she knows it will be tough to win the minds of those who do vote, so she has to go after the 40% who never vote.

Mulcair - Would have liked to see more Angry Tom, but I think he did well. He was in control of his facts and he was the ONLY leader last night who offered any specifics of what he would do (whether you agree or disagree). He got nailed on the Clarity Act, of course, and he looked a bit silly - but I suspect he knows exactly what message he needs to send to Quebecers to preserve NDP seats there.

Trudeau - I must have seen a different debate because in no way would categorize him as a winner last night. He seems like a good guy - very earnest and passionate. But he said absolutely zilch about what he would do as PM. Vague platitudes about helping the middle-class have no substance. Listening to him last night made it clear (to me) that his party backroom is filled with the same Mushy Middle Liberals of old. It's a shame.

From my perspective, I thought May and Mulcair came away winners, with Harper a close second. Trudeau was dead last performance-wise.

Trudeau's success at the debates last night should be noted that it hinged on the perceived low expectations of him going in. Same with Harper too.

 

[Azih]

I'm for preferential ranked ballots

'Preferential ranked ballots' is unfortunately a very made up term that means nothing. It applies equally well to Alternative Vote/Instant Runoff Voting which is broadly the same as FPTP just with different math leading to similar results. And it also applies to Single Transferrable Vote which is *thumbs up* a great PR system. Not as good as Mixed Member Proportional but still waaay better than either FPTP or AV/IRV.

Hell MMP can be designed with a 'Preferential ranked ballot' as well. It's really a meaningless phrase.

 

[RevoDS]

I am against regional parties, propping up region nationalism would send is backwards to the backwater. A threat to unity


it`s 100% Mulcair's fault for recently stating this year that he would repeal the Clarity Act.

He forgets what happened in the riding of Chomeday where 13% of the votes were rejected on Referendum night... hmmmm that +1 vote?
+the ambiguous ballot Question to boot

5426 votes in Chomeday were tossed into the garbage.

You're talking like there weren't any irregularities favoring the No. There were plenty of these as well.

But we'll never know what the "true" results would've been without any irregularities. It's pointless arguing about it. The fact is, the results are what they are and Quebec ultimately voted to remain in Canada. But you seem weirdly resentful of how close it was despite your preferred side winning.

About the Clarity Act, I'm entirely in favor of maintaining the "clear question" part of the Clarity Act; the 1995 question was indeed ridiculously complicated which helps no one.

But the federal government has no business telling us a simple majority vote is invalid. Arguing a close "yes" win is invalid because the federal government said so makes no sense. Would you argue the close "no" was invalid in 1995? Probably not. No one but extreme partisan nutjobs argue about the validity of a vote when it favors their side.

That's the only controversial part of the Clarity Act, and for good reason. That being said, as much as it pains me to agree with Harper, that's not a current or pressing issue. The fact no one would have batted an eye if it hadn't been mentioned in the debate is a good sign that it ultimately doesn't matter to most voters, including those in Quebec.

 

[gutter_trash]

You're talking like there weren't any irregularities favoring the No. There were plenty of these as well.

But we'll never know what the "true" results would've been without any irregularities. It's pointless arguing about it. The fact is, the results are what they are and Quebec ultimately voted to remain in Canada. But you seem weirdly resentful of how close it was despite your preferred side winning.

About the Clarity Act, I'm entirely in favor of maintaining the "clear question" part of the Clarity Act; the 1995 question was indeed ridiculously complicated which helps no one.

But the federal government has no business telling us a simple majority vote is invalid. Arguing a close "yes" win is invalid because the federal government said so makes no sense. Would you argue the close "no" was invalid in 1995? Probably not. No one but extreme partisan nutjobs argue about the validity of a vote when it favors their side.

That's the only controversial part of the Clarity Act, and for good reason. That being said, as much as it pains me to agree with Harper, that's not a current or pressing issue. The fact no one would have batted an eye if it hadn't been mentioned in the debate is a good sign that it ultimately doesn't matter to most voters, including those in Quebec.

The 1980 question is a giant jumbled paragraph.
The 1995 question is an ambiguous confusing question

Parizeau himself admitted that it was an irreversible ''lobster trap'' if the YES would have won and the he would have tossed Lucien Bouchard aside and declare independence regardless of the bogus ''negotiator in chief'' title Bouchard was given during the campaign or the ambiguous ballot box question

 

[dragonfart28]

Trudeau's Closing Speech At First Debate Sparks Mixed Reviews

Some found it worthy of goosebumps, others of groans. And in an unexpected moment mere minutes later, a reporter told him directly it was “kind of horrible.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/07/trudeau-speech-macleans-debate_n_7955070.html

 

[Azih]

I've read comments from Mulcair that he would retain the 'clear question' part of the Clarity Act and then add the 50%+1 clarification. That to me makes enough sense.

 

[gutter_trash]

I've read comments from Mulcair that he would retain the 'clear question' part of the Clarity Act and then add the 50%+1 clarification. That to me makes enough sense.

why even bring it up as a campaign issue on the part of the NDP in the first place?
it's all Mulcair who is bringing up the Sherbrooke Declaration during his summer campaign route.

 

[Walpurgis]

Who do you all think would be the best person to represent Canada when dealing with other countries?

I feel that Harper panders to the Americans too much and just follows what they do (e.g. Cuba). He's embarrassing and un-Canadian.

I think Trudeau would be okay. I don't know if the other countries would respect him because he's "young" but if he does what the Liberals have done in the past, he should be fine.

I think Mulcair would be great. I don't think he would take shit from anyone and he's even said that he wants Canada to be its own country again, referencing Harper's pandering.

I think May would best. She knows everything and is pretty cautious when it comes to military engagements like Libya. Where Mulcair seems like he would just do what the UN tells him to (which isn't really bad), May seems like she would tell the UN when they are wrong (and they often are).

 

[Tiktaalik]

It's not that he's writing off Quebec, but he clearly believes that he has more to gain in Ontario by staking out a staunch support of the Clarity Act rather than try and appease the Quebec masses.

Yes but this strategy makes it impossible to win.

...

Let’s imagine that on Oct. 19, the New Democrats hang on to most of their 54 Quebec seats, but otherwise the Liberals have a stellar, break-out-the-champagne night.

They win every one of the 36 seats they currently hold. And they take every seat currently held by the Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, a gain of 13. That brings them to 49.

They take 10 seats from the NDP in Quebec, gaining in Montreal and the Outaouais. That puts the Liberals at 59 seats as they cross the Ottawa River.

In Ontario, Mr. Trudeau has an impressive night. The Liberals defeat every Conservative in Toronto and split the rest of the GTA 50-50 with the Tories, who currently hold almost every seat. That gives the Grits an additional 20 seats. But they have wins elsewhere in Ontario, too: London, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa. Let’s add six more to the total. The Liberals leave Ontario with 85 seats.

They have a good night in the Conservatives’ Prairie bastion, with gains in Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton. Let’s say six more seats. That brings them up to 91.

And in British Columbia, they pick up another half-dozen seats in the Lower Mainland and on Vancouver Island, even though most fights in that region are Conservative-versus-NDP contests.

Congratulations, Liberals! You have 97 of 308 seats! You’re probably in third place, again.

But the House is expanding, from 308 to 338, with an additional 15 seats in Ontario, six each in Alberta and British Columbia and three in Quebec. Let’s give the Liberals half the seats in Ontario and B.C., and one of the three seats in Quebec (the Conservatives are expected to take all six Alberta seats).

That brings the Liberal total to 109 of 338 seats. That might be enough for opposition-party status, if the NDP vote collapses outside Quebec. But if the New Democrats hold on to or expand their support in English Canada, the Liberals will be back in third.

As Ipsos pollster Darrell Bricker puts it: “If the Liberals can’t form a geographic base somewhere in the country, especially Quebec, they can’t win.” An Ontario sweep, a la Jean Chrétien, isn’t in the cards because the right is united and the left divided, unlike the 1990s when the opposite was true.

...

Edit: Essentially the Liberals need to add another region of support and they don't currently have one. In other areas of the country it's currently a NDP/Conservative contest or NDP/Bloc.

 

[RevoDS]

The 1980 question is a giant jumbled paragraph.
The 1995 question is an ambiguous confusing question

Parizeau himself admitted that it was an irreversible ''lobster trap'' if the YES would have won and the he would have tossed Lucien Bouchard aside and declare independence regardless of the bogus ''negotiator in chief'' title Bouchard was given during the campaign or the ambiguous ballot box question

As I said, I'm not disagreeing about that part of the act. I'm actually in favor of enforcing clear questions.

What I'm not in favor of is arbitrarily dictating what's a valid and invalid result by using vague "clear majority" wording. In a sense, the Clarity Act suffers from the very same issues that plagued the referendum questions.

 

[Tiktaalik]

why even bring it up as a campaign issue on the part of the NDP in the first place?
it's all Mulcair who is bringing up the Sherbrooke Declaration during his summer campaign route.

Because the Bloc Quebecois still exist.

 

[Azih]

why even bring it up as a campaign issue on the part of the NDP in the first place?

To me if it helps turn soft nationalists into soft federalists then it's a good thing. And it seems like it does.

Here's the thing from my view. Hard nationalists in Quebec seem to have been a great thing for Liberals in Quebec because it allows the party to heat up the rhetoric and scare soft federalists into voting for them. But this also makes soft nationalists more likely to vote for separatist party because of the increased partisan nature of the debate. Pushing for an unknown and arbitrarily set high bar is an obviously unfair tactic and is an incredible down note of the 'Clarity Act'.

The way to really hurt the separatist movement isn't to attack and hector hard nationalists. They're not going to change their minds anyway. The way to hurt it is to bleed the soft nationalists away until only the die hard believers are left. Harper did a lot of this with his 'Quebecois are a nation' motion and Layton really did a number with his charm offensive (Dunno if Sherbrooke helped with that or not but it certainly didn't hurt).

Here's the crazy thing. I trust Harper and Mulcair way more to just move on from this fight rather than Trudeau who seems to have internalized a need to bring it up and fight it over and over again.

Clear question and 50%+1 makes the most sense to me and that's what Mulcair has said. And really this is all I'm going to say about this because seperatism isn't a topic worth a lot of discussion anymore (thankfully).

 

[Walpurgis]

Because the Bloc Quebecois still exist.

And I believe that they are the biggest threat to the NDP in Quebec.

 

[gutter_trash]

And I believe that they are the biggest threat to the NDP in Quebec.

the Bloc will elect 1 MP minimum up to 4 MPs max. I predict only only 2 Bloc MPs will get elected (Duceppe will lose again in Laurier-Ste-Marie = the most leftist riding in North America)

there are no 3 way ridings where the Liberals divide votes with NDP where the Bloc can squeeze in. The Liberal ridings where they are giving trouble to the NDP in Quebec are not Bloc friendly ridings at all.

Ahuntsic has been changed to Ahunstic-Cartierville and that redrawn kills any chances of the Bloc to ever re-elect anyone there since the Cartierville section added is super immigrant heavy

 

[matthewwhatever]

I was a teen when the Liberal Party of the 90s was in power and I recall them constantly promising this goodie and that goodie, and then never implementing any of it and instead governing with a centre-right agenda. The economy was fine so they dodged a lot of criticism for not really delivering on their policies, but I remember they broke their promises, and so it's been hard for me to shake the stereotype that the Liberals are a party that runs for election from the left, then when in power governs from the right. At this point I'm an 30 year old dude talking on a video game forum (!) so I dunno if anyone else is old enough to remember those days, but anyway that's where my deep skepticism of the party comes from.

I think we're roughly the same age, so I remember some of it too. I was working for opposition parties in the late '90s (first the NDP as an intern, then for the PCs in my first real job), so the attack lines are deep in my subconscious. Apart from the GST promise in the '90s, though, I'm having trouble remembering exactly what promises they broke. I remember some of the bad stuff (Billion Dollar Boondoggle! Tainted blood scandal! Cuts to the Canada Health and Social Transfers!), but I feel like most of their issues were over management of some programs, rather than with them going back on things they'd promised to do.

Who do you all think would be the best person to represent Canada when dealing with other countries?

I feel that Harper panders to the Americans too much and just follows what they do (e.g. Cuba). He's embarrassing and un-Canadian.

I think Trudeau would be okay. I don't know if the other countries would respect him because he's "young" but if he does what the Liberals have done in the past, he should be fine.

I think Mulcair would be great. I don't think he would take shit from anyone and he's even said that he wants Canada to be its own country again, referencing Harper's pandering.

I think May would best. She knows everything and is pretty cautious when it comes to military engagements like Libya. Where Mulcair seems like he would just do what the UN tells him to (which isn't really bad), May seems like she would tell the UN when they are wrong (and they often are).

Harper has been a disaster on the international stage: isolating us from our traditional allies on major issues, talking tough without doing anything to back it up, making rash decisions (i.e. closing the Embassy in Iran in a huff, selling off overseas properties) and then forcing Canada to the sidelines by necessity. Not sure why you think he's been pandering to the Americans, when a large chunk of his foreign policy in recent years has been to antagonize Obama over Keystone. He's been an absolute joke on the environment. Even on trade, most of what he's "achieved" has been an illusion: even though there was a FTA with the EU announced, it wasn't signed or ratified, and it's looking doubtful that it will even get passed. Likewise, it wouldn't be surprising if the TPP gets signed with Canada on the outside.

I think Trudeau would be fine. He's been living in the spotlight for most of his life, and he's great in one-on-one situations.

May would probably do surprisingly well. A little hectoring at times, but she's been on the international stage long enough that I think she'd know what to do. She comes from some money and she's friends with the Clintons, so it's not like she's some hippie bumpkin.

Mulcair would be just as bad as Harper, if not worse. He's prone to throwing tantrums (see his abrupt departure from the Quebec cabinet), he's a bit conspiratorially-minded, and he came off as really wishy-washy in the foreign affairs section last night when it came to NATO/NORAD. If you think the problem with US relations is that we've been too close to them in recent years -- which really, really isn't the case -- then sure, he'd probably find a way to antagonize them further, but I don't know why you'd want to antagonize the country that's responsible for the overwhelming majority of your trade.

Yes but this strategy makes it literally impossible to win.

Just the fact he says that the Conservatives are expected to take all six of the new Alberta seats makes me question the rest of his analysis. They're all urban ridings, and the Calgary Liberals and Edmonton NDP are expected to make pretty major inroads there.

 

[BigJonsson]

I always wonder if the people acting as background decoration each time a leader makes a speech are getting paid? Do you get extra money if you're a visible minority?

No

 

[Azih]

I think we're roughly the same age, so I remember some of it too. I was working for opposition parties in the late '90s (first the NDP as an intern, then for the PCs in my first real job), so the attack lines are deep in my subconscious. Apart from the GST promise in the '90s, though, I'm having trouble remembering exactly what promises they broke.

The eliminate child poverty pledge by the year 2000 and doing nothing on carbon emissions after Kyoto are two big ones that I remember.

 

[Tiktaalik]

the Bloc will elect 1 MP minimum up to 4 MPs max. I predict only only 2 Bloc MPs will get elected (Duceppe will lose again in Laurier-Ste-Marie = the most leftist riding in North America)

there are no 3 way ridings where the Liberals divide votes with NDP where the Bloc can squeeze in. The Liberal ridings where they are giving trouble to the NDP in Quebec are not Bloc friendly ridings at all.

Ahuntsic has been changed to Ahunstic-Cartierville and that redrawn kills any chances of the Bloc to ever re-elect anyone there since the Cartierville section added is super immigrant heavy

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here?

A major part of the reason the Bloc lost so many of their seats to the NDP is due to the NDP's Quebec policies. As the Bloc still exists, and the NDP is still in competition with them for seats, the NDP must reaffirm these policies (the Sherbrooke declaration) on the Quebec campaign trail. In the absence of these policies, support would return to the Bloc.

 

[Tiktaalik]

ack i misread.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Just the fact he says that the Conservatives are expected to take all six of the new Alberta seats makes me question the rest of his analysis. They're all urban ridings, and the Calgary Liberals and Edmonton NDP are expected to make pretty major inroads there.

You can look up the redistribution of votes from the previous election to the new boundaries here

It looks to me that these are all solid Conservative seats. If anything the realignment has made these seats safer Conservative seats.

Riding - Winning Party
Votes
Vote Percentage
Runner Up Party
Votes
Vote Percentage

Calgary Centre	Conservative	
22,949
55.4
Liberal	
7,926
19.1

Calgary Confederation	Conservative	
26,619
52.4
Liberal	
8,957
17.6

Calgary Forest Lawn	Conservative	
19,574
63.3
Liberal	
5,397
17.5

Calgary Heritage	Conservative	
34,761
74.4
NDP-New Democratic Party	
5,663
12.1

Calgary Midnapore	Conservative	
37,022
75.9
NDP-New Democratic Party	
5,145
10.5

Calgary Nose Hill	Conservative	
29,144
69.3
NDP-New Democratic Party	
5,376
12.8

Calgary Rocky Ridge	Conservative	
30,179
68.5
Liberal	
5,572
12.7

Calgary Shepard	Conservative	
29,904
75.5
NDP-New Democratic Party	
4,407
11.1

Calgary Signal Hill	Conservative	
29,199
64.9
Liberal	
6,946
15.4

Calgary Skyview	Conservative	
16,573
56.3
Liberal	
8,438
28.6

Everyone should be looking at this page pretty much to determine what the dynamics of your new riding is. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/trans2013&document=index&lang=e

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

No

 

[BigJonsson]

They don't get paid

I don't agree with using kids as props, whether they are in the background or when a politician uses a classroom as a photo op

 

[maharg]

You can look up the redistribution of votes from the previous election to the new boundaries here

It looks to me that these are all solid Conservative seats. If anything the realignment has made these seats safer Conservative seats.

...snip...

Everyone should be looking at this page pretty much to determine what the dynamics of your new riding is. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/trans2013&document=index&lang=e

The 'new' ridings aren't the only ones that changed. A few Edmonton ridings went from rurban to rural/urban, for example. But also the NDP is up quite a lot in recent polls for Alberta, and almost all of that swing is going to be in urban ridings (mostly in Edmonton).

So while the CPC may take all 6 new seats, it doesn't mean they're going to net +6 seats in the province.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

lol

Trudeau On Bill C-51 Stance: 'Perhaps It Was Naive'
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/136520-trudeau-bill-c-51-stance.html
http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/7953724

*sigh...

Maybe he really isn't ready...

 

[MMarston]

Full debate transcript now available
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/tale-of-the-tape-read-a-full-transcript-of-macleans-debate/

 

[matthewwhatever]

*sigh...

Maybe he really isn't ready...

Eeep, a nuanced position! That means he doesn't know what he's doing!

The eliminate child poverty pledge by the year 2000 and doing nothing on carbon emissions after Kyoto are two big ones that I remember.

Kyoto is one of their failings (I blame the fact Martin was petrified of ever committing to doing anything, so even though Chretien had gotten it ratified and people generally supported it, he still couldn't do anything with it), but the Child Poverty Pledge was put forward by Ed Broadbent and agreed to unanimously with Mulroney in PM. That seems like a failure on all parties to me.

You can look up the redistribution of votes from the previous election to the new boundaries here

It looks to me that these are all solid Conservative seats. If anything the realignment has made these seats safer Conservative seats.

Everyone should be looking at this page pretty much to determine what the dynamics of your new riding is. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=cir/trans2013&document=index&lang=e

As Maharg said, the polls have changed quite a bit since last election. The Liberals have nearly pulled off a few by-election wins in Calgary, and the NDP is obviously still upbeat about their chances following the last provincial election. You can't just take the results from the last election and assume they'll dictate how the next election will go. It's obviously a challenge to start off from behind, but saying it can't be done ignores that votes can move over in huge numbers -- that's how change elections happen.

 

[Fou-Lu]

One line stuck out to me in Trudeau's closing statement: "He(Harper) wants you to believe that better just isn’t possible."

So fucking true. This is why we need Harper out.

 

[Silexx]

*sigh...

Maybe he really isn't ready...

Man, a politician who appears willing to admit he made a mistake? Can't have that, we need someone who would never admit they're wrong even in face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. That's true leadership.

 

[Azih]

Kyoto is one of their failings (I blame the fact Martin was petrified of ever committing to doing anything, so even though Chretien had gotten it ratified and people generally supported it, he still couldn't do anything with it), but the Child Poverty Pledge was put forward by Ed Broadbent and agreed to unanimously with Mulroney in PM. That seems like a failure on all parties to me.

Liberals had full power from '93 on and they even had surpluses but they did absolutely nothing about it. The failure weighs heaviest on the Liberals in my mind. It's really 1996 on (when I immigrated to Canada) that cemented in my mind that the Liberals campaign from the left but govern from the right and I've never really trusted them because of the Martin surpluses and the big load of nothing that they did with those to make Canada a better country.

I think it's exacerbated by the fact that Toronto was a solid bedrock of Liberal support during those years but the Federal Liberals did jack squat for the city despite the city being shat on by Mike Harris. The 90's and early oughts were dark years for the city.

 

[Tiktaalik]

As Maharg said, the polls have changed quite a bit since last election. The Liberals have nearly pulled off a few by-election wins in Calgary, and the NDP is obviously still upbeat about their chances following the last provincial election. You can't just take the results from the last election and assume they'll dictate how the next election will go. It's obviously a challenge to start off from behind, but saying it can't be done ignores that votes can move over in huge numbers -- that's how change elections happen.

Dude I'm a firm believer in the power the campaign, and that things can change over a campaign, but seriously look at these numbers. These aren't competitive contests. The Liberals and NDP would have to do staggeringly better than they are now in order to win in some of these ridings. Obviously it could happen, but not based on the current polling. The Libs/NDP will need to do even better. Based on the most recent Ekos Polling Libs are at 16% support in Alberta, up 7% from their 2011 showing. The smallest gap here is Calgary Skyview, in which there was a 28% gap between Cons and Lib. Libs will need to grow their support even further to win these ridings.

If we roll back to why we started talking about this, it was an article about the current situation of the Liberal Party at the current polling. I think that article's thesis is largely true, that based on current polling they can't win unless they are able to grab another major region as a base in addition to Ontario, whether that's BC, Alberta or Quebec. Fortunately for the Liberals they have the longest campaign in decades in order to move the needle beyond where they are right now.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

Eeep, a nuanced position! That means he doesn't know what he's doing!.

Man, a politician who appears willing to admit he made a mistake? Can't have that, we need someone who would never admit they're wrong even in face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. That's true leadership.

Guys, calm down for a bit.

He voted for the bill because he thought it would score him brownie points but when things started back firing he started with the "oh, I've made a mistake" card.

What other "naive" decisions are we going to forgive?

C-51 was unconstitutional from the get go.

 

[Expansion Pack]

Eeep, a nuanced position! That means he doesn't know what he's doing!

Uh, what nuance is he demonstrating here? Voting in favor of Bill C-51 was a reckless decision. It maybe would have made some sense if he could somehow guarantee that he'd win the election and weed out the bad parts, but that's not the case at all. What happens if we get another Conservative government in October? Then we're stuck with all of Bill C-51 - bad parts included - and the Liberals' support for it will be part of the reason for that.

Isn't it also widely understood that his support for it was very partisan (i.e. he wanted to attract centre-right voters worried about the issue of security)? Reckless and naive are perfect words to describe his support for C-51 at the time.

 

[Silexx]

Guys, calm down for a bit.

He voted for the bill because he thought it would score him brownie points but when things started back firing he started with the "oh, I've made a mistake" card.

What other "naive" decisions are we going to forgive?

C-51 was unconstitutional from the get go.

He wasn't trying to score points, he was trying to restrict giving the CPC any more ammunition that he was possibly 'soft of terrorism'. To you and I and the rest of us who hated this legislation, it is no surprise that Trudeau was going to get some blowback because we're the ones who were going to give it. But let's not get caught up in hindsight bias.

The context of the time was that the Liberals were neck-and-neck and sometimes outright leading the polls against the CPC. The NDP were seen as just trying to retain any seats that still had. Harper was laser focused on Trudeau and was doing everything to paint him as a weak leader. When the Justin announced that the Liberals would vote for C-51 it was largely seen as a symbolic gesture in order to play it 'safe' (the bill was going to pass because the CPC has a majority). The blowback from the population was swift but also kinda unexpected, though again hindsight tells us that it was quite naive to think this wouldn't bite Justin in the ass.

 

[Silexx]

Uh, what nuance is he demonstrating here? Voting in favor of Bill C-51 was a reckless decision. It maybe would have made some sense if he could somehow guarantee that he'd win the election and weed out the bad parts, but that's not the case at all. What happens if we get another Conservative government in October? Then we're stuck with all of Bill C-51 - bad parts included - and the Liberals' support for it will be part of the reason for that.

Sorry this makes no sense. The CPC has a majority so C-51 was going to pass no matter which party in opposition supported it or not. If the Conservatives are elected again and the bill remains the same, then that because they campaigned they would keep the legislation as is and not because they had so past support from the Liberals.

 

[Expansion Pack]

Sorry this makes no sense. The CPC has a majority so C-51 was going to pass no matter which party in opposition supported it or not. If the Conservatives are elected again and the bill remains the same, then that because they campaigned they would keep the legislation as is and not because they had so past support from the Liberals.

C-51 wasn't necessarily going to pass, no. There's no way a party could have known this for certain. There could have very easily been outliers in the CPC that would have voted against this bill. Having the LPC vote in favor of it, however, guaranteed that it would pass. That's inexcusable.

 

[Dr.Acula]

C-51 wasn't necessarily going to pass, no. There's no way a party could have known this for certain. There could have very easily been outliers in the CPC that would have voted against this bill. Having the LPC vote in favor of it, however, guaranteed that it would pass. That's inexcusable.

I've never heard of a majority government losing a vote that its PM supports.

 

[Mr. Giggles]

He wasn't trying to score points, he was trying to restrict giving the CPC any more ammunition that he was possibly 'soft of terrorism'. To you and I and the rest of us who hated this legislation, it is no surprise that Trudeau was going to get some blowback because we're the ones who were going to give it. But let's not get caught up in hindsight bias.

The context of the time was that the Liberals were neck-and-neck and sometimes outright leading the polls against the CPC. The NDP were seen as just trying to retain any seats that still had. Harper was laser focused on Trudeau and was doing everything to paint him as a weak leader. When the Justin announced that the Liberals would vote for C-51 it was largely seen as a symbolic gesture in order to play it 'safe' (the bill was going to pass because the CPC has a majority). The blowback from the population was swift but also kinda unexpected, though again hindsight tells us that it was quite naive to think this wouldn't bite Justin in the ass.

Exactly, that symbolic gesture was him looking for those "brownie points" I mentioned.

You are correct that the C-51 was going to pass due to the majority CPC but lets not pretend that the blow back was unexpected - People were against this the moment it was announced, there was just nothing they could do about it.

What was unexpected was magnitude of the blow back - I was liberal but that pushed me into the NDP's arms

 

[Simon Belmont]

C-51 wasn't necessarily going to pass, no. There's no way a party could have known this for certain. There could have very easily been outliers in the CPC that would have voted against this bill. Having the LPC vote in favor of it, however, guaranteed that it would pass. That's inexcusable.

As Dr. Acula stated, there's just no way that would be the case.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Dude I'm a firm believer in the power the campaign, and that things can change over a campaign, but seriously look at these numbers. These aren't competitive contests. The Liberals and NDP would have to do staggeringly better than they are now in order to win in some of these ridings. Obviously it could happen, but not based on the current polling. The Libs/NDP will need to do even better. Based on the most recent Ekos Polling Libs are at 16% support in Alberta, up 7% from their 2011 showing. The smallest gap here is Calgary Skyview, in which there was a 28% gap between Cons and Lib. Libs will need to grow their support even further to win these ridings.

If we roll back to why we started talking about this, it was an article about the current situation of the Liberal Party at the current polling. I think that article's thesis is largely true, that based on current polling they can't win unless they are able to grab another major region as a base in addition to Ontario, whether that's BC, Alberta or Quebec. Fortunately for the Liberals they have the longest campaign in decades in order to move the needle beyond where they are right now.

I take your point, which is that it's hard. But I'm hoping the campaign will make it possible to move the needle.

C-51 wasn't necessarily going to pass, no. There's no way a party could have known this for certain. There could have very easily been outliers in the CPC that would have voted against this bill. Having the LPC vote in favor of it, however, guaranteed that it would pass. That's inexcusable.

The Conservatives have a huge majority. You're basically saying that that 20+ CPC MPs -- who, to date, have shown no inclination whatsoever towards independent thought or action -- were suddenly going to grow spines and vote against their leader's wishes, thereby killing their careers. Right.

The Liberals tried adding sunset clauses to everything, which would've made most of the provisions expire within the next few years. They also tried adding Parliamentary oversight. In both cases, they were blocked.