CreeperBlocks
Banned
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
Look.
LET ME BE CLEAR
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
LET ME BE CLEAR
-Pyromaniac-
Member
Oh wow they were shaking hands, I knew this shit was scripted.
matthewwhatever
Member
That whole thing was just abysmal. I think Trudeau got in some good lines, and I felt like he did a good job of differentiating himself from the other two, but I can't imagine anyone could've watched that and been informed on much.
Only one of those actually relates to the economy, and the platform the NDP put out today made it clear that they're not planning on having childcare until 2020 at the earliest.
First week of October -- TVA only. And allegedly Munk will have "bilingual elements". No idea what's going on with the consortium debates.
Only one of those actually relates to the economy, and the platform the NDP put out today made it clear that they're not planning on having childcare until 2020 at the earliest.
First week of October -- TVA only. And allegedly Munk will have "bilingual elements". No idea what's going on with the consortium debates.
Almost sounds Scottish
Learn2read
Member
sounds like a Scottish ex-pat (maybe a decade or two removed) but IDK
dragonfart28
Banned
I disagree.
I think all three actually did a decent job articulating themselves even though Trudeau had some flaky moments.
Lots of talking points so I don't really think anything was accomplished tonight.
Other than finding out that Trudeau is an irrational boob. He's not doing the Liberals any good. Mulcair was much more controlled and focused, but should have been targeting Harper more. Harper said little and showed his calm experience, fully willing to let the others argue.
Other than finding out that Trudeau is an irrational boob. He's not doing the Liberals any good. Mulcair was much more controlled and focused, but should have been targeting Harper more. Harper said little and showed his calm experience, fully willing to let the others argue.
matthewwhatever
Member
They're up more than 10 points from where they were last election. He's proving to be much, much stronger in debates than anyone would've expected a few weeks ago. I think they're pretty well-served by having him as leader.
Can Gretzky even vote in this election?
Wayne, I used to like you, bruh.
That's it, Harper wins
Learn2read
Member
Brent now the best Gretzky
Well damn, that explains it - I guess they must have mentioned that a few times, I should pay more attention.
I am also a real human person who is smiling!
To be fair, all three of those are horribly fake smiles.
Simon Belmont
Banned
I'd say all three are fake, anyways.
A rich white guy who spends most of his time in the US...
Sounds exactly like Harper's demographic.
I think Walter Gretzky is a big Con supporter as well.
Simon Belmont
Banned
His cousin Al is a resident crazy in London who routinely runs for the "freedom party". I played some very low stakes poker with him once. Nice guy.
No, Donald Sutherland endorsed the NDP today
Didn't Donald Sutherland write an op-ed a while ago bemoaning the fact that he can't vote in this election because one of the courts decided to reverse the ex-pat voting decision?
Simon Belmont
Banned
Can we get Norm Macdonald's take if we're polling people who haven't given a shit about Canada in decades?
What about Donald Sutherland, Neil Young and Leonard Cohen ? What about Rachel McAdams and Ellen Page ? Rich white people who spend most of their time in the US.
Simon Belmont
Banned
Nope. You are correct on both assumptions.
With their national childcare pledge, the NDP is the only party advocating an expansion of the welfare state. They are certainly the most left wing party.
Martin's national childcare pledge.
That's true, and he also mentioned the 15 dollar minimum wage - something I've heard in passing but not actually looked into, I should. I think what threw me was the anti-deficit position, and Trudeau's talk about '1%' tax increasing and reducing taxes for the middle wage just sounds like 'left leaning' to me - but I need to probably think about it broader than that.
Did not like how that debate was run and here are my thoughts on it.I seriously don't know happened with trudeau in this debate. He was way to aggressive and trying to sound like he was in parliament instead of in an actual debate. He also tried to pull off one liners a lot or tried to find stuff to sink his opponents with especially in the first part of the debate. Mulcair had the same issue(too agressive at times), but it was not as bad as trudeau and he actually sounded prime ministerial at times. He did make mistakes at times also.Harper was a bit repetitive at times and I still think he's weak on the environment, but he actually acted calm and cool a lot more than the other two . I think mulcair barely edged(1%-3% difference) out harper in this debate while trudeau did pretty bad.
The NDP is way more centrist than it used to be that's true, but in addition to the childcare pledge they're also by far the most committed reformers with voting system reform.
Trudeau is trying to shed his too young too green image
Harper is trying to seem like the only Prime Ministerial option
Mulcair is trying to strike a balance between being Prime Ministerial and being an agent of true change.
There is no $15 minimum wage plan from the NDP.
I was writing a response to your post before the debate started but held off posting because I knew the debate would accelerate the thread speed and you might miss it, so here it is:
I agree that the Liberal plan is the most realistic and easy to immediately implement, however I don't really consider the Liberal platform to be all that progressive. I'd consider the most progressive platform to be the one that does the most to help the poorest, not just which one taxes the rich the most. The Liberal's "middle class" tax cut for example simply moves money from the top 1% to the top 10%, so I don't really see this as a progressive move that would help most Canadians. I think the one promise from all parties that would do the most to help low income Canadians would be the NDP's National Childcare Plan.
From what I've read it's more the reverse, with the Liberal Party holding the vaguer stance of stating that they'd form a committee to investigate reform, and the NDP being concrete that they will switch to Proportional Representation if they win. The NDP already put a bill to switch to PR before Parliament. Trudeau voted against it as he personally favours ranked ballots. I know there are other posters that are very into this issue and they may chime in with more info. This organization contacted each MP and asked them what their opinion on FPTP was. In many cases the only responses were from NDP and Green candidates.
I'm a big proponent of increased infrastructure spending, and I think the Liberals have the right view that it's ok to be comfortable going into deficit in order to invest. However I would like to hear a lot more from them about the nature and type of their investments. Without more details I feel like they're just trying to bamboozle me with big numbers (which aren't really even that big in the grand scheme of our $279 billion budget).
I wouldn't consider it left wing or right wing to advocate for increased investment in infrastructure in general so just announcing more funding is not enough to put me at ease that that funding will go to the right priorities. Infrastructure spending eventually boils down to pork barrel politics and great photo ops, so it's something that all parties really like. For example we saw the Conservatives announce over $2 billion for public transit in Calgary this year.
I'd like to hear a lot more detail from the Liberals and the NDP both about the policies behind their infrastructure plans. For example money for "affordable housing" is a great thing to promise, but there's a huge difference between a plan that is focusing on subsidized housing for low income Canadians and the hard to house, and a plan that would be no strings attached tax breaks for developers to build rental housing regardless of whether its sub-market, market or luxury housing. Depending on how it's focused infrastructure funding can intrench expensive, unsustainable urban development, or help lift people out of poverty. Details matter.
I agree that the Liberal plan is the most realistic and easy to immediately implement, however I don't really consider the Liberal platform to be all that progressive. I'd consider the most progressive platform to be the one that does the most to help the poorest, not just which one taxes the rich the most. The Liberal's "middle class" tax cut for example simply moves money from the top 1% to the top 10%, so I don't really see this as a progressive move that would help most Canadians. I think the one promise from all parties that would do the most to help low income Canadians would be the NDP's National Childcare Plan.
From what I've read it's more the reverse, with the Liberal Party holding the vaguer stance of stating that they'd form a committee to investigate reform, and the NDP being concrete that they will switch to Proportional Representation if they win. The NDP already put a bill to switch to PR before Parliament. Trudeau voted against it as he personally favours ranked ballots. I know there are other posters that are very into this issue and they may chime in with more info. This organization contacted each MP and asked them what their opinion on FPTP was. In many cases the only responses were from NDP and Green candidates.
I'm a big proponent of increased infrastructure spending, and I think the Liberals have the right view that it's ok to be comfortable going into deficit in order to invest. However I would like to hear a lot more from them about the nature and type of their investments. Without more details I feel like they're just trying to bamboozle me with big numbers (which aren't really even that big in the grand scheme of our $279 billion budget).
I wouldn't consider it left wing or right wing to advocate for increased investment in infrastructure in general so just announcing more funding is not enough to put me at ease that that funding will go to the right priorities. Infrastructure spending eventually boils down to pork barrel politics and great photo ops, so it's something that all parties really like. For example we saw the Conservatives announce over $2 billion for public transit in Calgary this year.
I'd like to hear a lot more detail from the Liberals and the NDP both about the policies behind their infrastructure plans. For example money for "affordable housing" is a great thing to promise, but there's a huge difference between a plan that is focusing on subsidized housing for low income Canadians and the hard to house, and a plan that would be no strings attached tax breaks for developers to build rental housing regardless of whether its sub-market, market or luxury housing. Depending on how it's focused infrastructure funding can intrench expensive, unsustainable urban development, or help lift people out of poverty. Details matter.
BigJonsson
Member
I didn't watch the debate, sounds like I didn't miss much
Yeah, I haven't really watched Trudeau talk a lot but he didn't act in a way that I expected him to act - I felt like he was trying to skirt the line between "I am rising above mud slinging" and "I'm not some soft spoken guy who doesn't seem tough like a PM". He ended up saying "I'm being honest, these two guys are being politicians" while then also using the same talking points over and over in an almost comically predictable way, like a politician would. His attempt to seem adult seemed almost... exasperated, like he was out of breath trying to keep it up. Maybe that's a bit unfair.
I generally like the liberal platform more than NDP, but Mulcair is better at playing politician than Trudeau, I think. Maybe I need to see them both speak more though.
matthewwhatever
Member
Some interesting background on the usage of "Old Stock Canadians". Spoiler: Stormfront is the top result (or was -- I imagine now Harper's going to get that honour).
...except, again, the NDP platform released today said that they wouldn't be implementing National Childcare until 2020, and that was based on some pretty wildly optimistic growth and oil price assumptions (plus getting the provinces to kick in billions on new spending). If it's really going to kickstart the economy, why wait 4+ years?
...except, again, the NDP platform released today said that they wouldn't be implementing National Childcare until 2020, and that was based on some pretty wildly optimistic growth and oil price assumptions (plus getting the provinces to kick in billions on new spending). If it's really going to kickstart the economy, why wait 4+ years?
I think my problem here is I am being a little bit too self centered, as I don't have a kid, I almost always forget about the national childcare plan - that's something I need to read a lot more about, I think that's something that can help a lot of people out.
I think re-reading both platforms, I see where you're coming from. The strong "last time we'll have first past the post" language on the liberal website blinded me to the second half the statement essentially saying "but we don't know what will replace it". Where the NDP's statement is a little lighter in the front end but is much clearer about where they want to be.
These are all really useful thoughts, I really appreciate them, things I need to consider more.
I think housing is a big deal to me, as I am finally in a place in my life where I have strong employment and a dual income, and I need to start seriously considering where I stand on home ownership.
I almost forgot Harper was there most of the time, I wonder if that's because I don't care that much for him, or if that's something that was more objectively felt.
Hrm, can you elaborate? Mulcair was talking about it a lot near the beginning of the debate, no? Was I mishearing/understanding?
Honestly no party has a good stance on housing.
No party is going to advocate anything different than the status quo. To do otherwise would be advocating lowering the value of Canadians' assets, which is political suicide.
The bubble is going to pop eventually and whoever happens to be in power when it happens is going to get fucked hard.
No party is going to advocate anything different than the status quo. To do otherwise would be advocating lowering the value of Canadians' assets, which is political suicide.
The bubble is going to pop eventually and whoever happens to be in power when it happens is going to get fucked hard.
matthewwhatever
Member
They're promising a $15 minimum wage on federally regulated jobs -- so not people working minimum wage in the service industry. As Trudeau said, that doesn't apply to 99%+ of Canadians, and most credible analysts estimate that fewer than 30,000 people would actually get more money out of it.
You didn't mishear. Mulcair is raising the federal minimum wage to $15. I think this only affects people employed by the federal government who are making below $15, which I don't believe is a lot. Mulcair says that it will affect hundreds of thousands, some posters here said it will only affect thousands. Either way, it doesn't sound very useful to me. Mulcair did say tonight that he will try to get provinces to do the same but it's the first I've heard of that.
The big impact of the $15 min wage on fed employees is that it gives provincial opposition parties, and unions leverage in arguing for a $15 wage in their jurisdictions. This is the same reason for why municipal governments have implemented livable wages even though they only affect a tiny amount of workers.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked