p_xavier
Authorized Fister
Trudeau has done basically nothing for QC and especially Montreal, he's alienating even his core supporters. The media here are calling him out on it. The Bombardier loan was seen as a major slap in the face.
-
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 PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
Can you elaborate on the Bombardier part, for those that haven't caught up on it? Last I heard was that they got a few contracts, so the feds don't think the loan is appropriate anymore?
p_xavier
Authorized Fister
It took two years for the feds to give a loan of a couple of hundreds millions of dollars. The QC government and CDPQ basically saved Bombardier, which is as important if not more of a company then the automotive companies in Ontario. These compagnies were given billions of dollars during the great recession and people in QC assumed that the federal government would at least match the QC help. They never did. The QC people see it again as Ontario favoritism, much like NF's Muskrat falls help. There was no federal government help announced so far for the Montreal SkyTrain system even if it was announced a year ago and the QC government is waiting for its share, just like the metro extension. Ottawa never invested in transit here compared to Toronto, Ottawa or Vancouver for their transit extensions. The Infrastructure Bank idea was created by the CDPQ and it seems so far that Toronto is getting the HQ while the major engineering expertise is in Montreal. This is seen as another betrayal by Trudeau.
Oh, and to add onto this: Quebec's deficit is currently the best out of all provinces right now. There's still a lot of work to be done, but it's an important thing to note especially when Ontario is swimming in deficit and debt payments.
On topic though: I've always had mixed feelings about Bombardier, especially as they swing between competitive and non-competitive through the years. The same thing can be said about GM and automotive companies though, so it's a difficult thing to process.
I recall people whining against both loan.
Bombardier isn't liked much here anymore.
That and they fail at business way too much of late and should eat the consequences instead of getting bailed every time.
gutter_trash
Banned
Although the Caisse de Depot is mostly spearheading and taking care of the electric rail project,
the Federal is poneying up its share of Federal funding to match the Provincial's.
The "new" Champlain Bridge will be toll free (that's what Trudeau said to counter Harper's proposed tolls).
that bridge will have the electric rail running through it
yup, they whine allot. Righties whined about Bombardier depending on corporate wellfare, Lefties whined about it not being enough LOL
Bombardier is badly managed and it has its tentacles engrained in Provincial politics with many execs being former MNAs and MPs smooching off the government while doing a really shitty job running a "private" company.
Complaints about Bombardier are warranted but also are concerns of keeping high skilled jobs locally, those jobs are not replaceable.
Bombardier has the knack of holding the government hostage by dangling those "jobs" like shiney keys
p_xavier
Authorized Fister
The CDPQ is still waiting for the confirmation of the feds, there is nothing confirmed.
gutter_trash
Banned
wait for the usual photo-op and news announcement
matthewwhatever
Member
Maxime Bernier apparently decided that hardcore libertarianism wasn't going to make him repellent enough to the general population, so he's decided to throw in thinly-veiled racism, too:
(I mean, you could make the argument that libertarianism often goes hand-in-hand with thinly-veiled racism, but it's interesting to see him pre-emptively brings this up, before journalists even get a chance to trip him up with civil rights questions.)
(I mean, you could make the argument that libertarianism often goes hand-in-hand with thinly-veiled racism, but it's interesting to see him pre-emptively brings this up, before journalists even get a chance to trip him up with civil rights questions.)
Maxime Bernier: Knows nothing about Canada, Quebec and New France's history.
EDIT: The Beaverton's been killing it with these ads for the CPC leadership: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXwXyVt6jzA
That's one way to steal some of the O'Leary/Leitch thunder...
I feel Bombardier is one of those "Too big to fail company". They employ a lot of people with good salaries and many small businesses exist entirely to sell them supply or services. Both government level keep dropping billions into the company even if it's really badly managed at this point because no one wants to have to experience a term where the company finally bites the dust. I mean a lot of these career will be obviously destroyed as there isn't much more aerospace business anymore outside Pratt & Whitney. I do feel on the other hand that it's probably not very fun for some companies and their employees that went under while the governement did nothing and yet they keep bailing out this company. You just have to love how the billionaires owning the company are begging for money while they could invest in the company themselves. It's always easier to burn someone's else money than yours eh.
Some of the blame for Bombardier being too big to fail has to go to the government though. If Bombardier fails to turn it around then the government will just have to bail it out again, repeat ad infinitum. So an unsustainable company maybe even grows and becomes a more and more important part of the local economy.
If the government had supported actually profitable companies in the past instead of perpetuating and growing failing ones the local economy would be standing on stronger, more sustainable ground. Instead the bailouts become a regressive and inefficient welfare scheme for the workers of the failing company, but with the owners of the company getting a big cut off the top.
Meanwhile actually profitable companies become less competitive internationally because they have to pay more tax and higher salaries to offset higher income taxes. And maybe you don't have much sympathy for having to pay more tax, but consider how much more wealth their would be to distribute if all of Bombardiers workers had jobs where they were net contributors to the Treasury instead of net receivers. There's nothing wrong with being a net receiver of tax money, but we should strive to have everyone who could feasibly be a net contributor be one so there is more for those who would need the help no matter what.
tl;dr: If we support failing companies instead of profitable ones we're just gonna end up with a bunch of failing companies.
If the government had supported actually profitable companies in the past instead of perpetuating and growing failing ones the local economy would be standing on stronger, more sustainable ground. Instead the bailouts become a regressive and inefficient welfare scheme for the workers of the failing company, but with the owners of the company getting a big cut off the top.
Meanwhile actually profitable companies become less competitive internationally because they have to pay more tax and higher salaries to offset higher income taxes. And maybe you don't have much sympathy for having to pay more tax, but consider how much more wealth their would be to distribute if all of Bombardiers workers had jobs where they were net contributors to the Treasury instead of net receivers. There's nothing wrong with being a net receiver of tax money, but we should strive to have everyone who could feasibly be a net contributor be one so there is more for those who would need the help no matter what.
tl;dr: If we support failing companies instead of profitable ones we're just gonna end up with a bunch of failing companies.
I mean, the tricky thing about just letting a company like that fail these days is that it's pretty likely that the way those employees become net contributors is by moving to the US (or elsewhere) where there are better engineering jobs. It isn't necessarily a net win for the local economy because skilled labour is very mobile, and there just isn't as much call for it in Canada as there used to be.
I'm generally not in favour of government propping up businesses that are 'too big to fail', but the consequences are sometimes difficult to weigh. This is probably one of those cases.
I'm generally not in favour of government propping up businesses that are 'too big to fail', but the consequences are sometimes difficult to weigh. This is probably one of those cases.
Bombardier was doing alright before the last two years, and most of their financial woes are due to being at the end of the development cycle of two new aircrafts they'll now be able to sell for the next 25 years. They're at the costly point of starting production, but not being paid yet.
The Québec government could make a nice profit after buying half of a 25-year aerospace program that was 99% done for a billion dollars.
It's one of the few canadian companies that make hi-tech products that are actually used worldwide. Canada is already lagging when it it comes to R&D. I can only imagine what it would look like if you took Bombardier and its suppliers out of the equation...
ETA: In 2016, Bombardier spent almost four times more money on R&D than #2 Magna.
http://www.design-engineering.com/infosource-rd-canada-1004025183/
The Québec government could make a nice profit after buying half of a 25-year aerospace program that was 99% done for a billion dollars.
It's one of the few canadian companies that make hi-tech products that are actually used worldwide. Canada is already lagging when it it comes to R&D. I can only imagine what it would look like if you took Bombardier and its suppliers out of the equation...
ETA: In 2016, Bombardier spent almost four times more money on R&D than #2 Magna.
http://www.design-engineering.com/infosource-rd-canada-1004025183/
Killa Sasa
Member
So Bernier is like just a touch less crazy than OLeary/Leitch yet most likely to win, outside of those two and seems overall?
Damn.It. Leitch/OLeary are unacceptable to me, so strategically Mr Gold Fucking Standard aka Bernier is the one to pick first right?
I know Chong is the "best" of them but above all, ensuring it's not Leitch or O'Leary is most important to me.
Damn.It. Leitch/OLeary are unacceptable to me, so strategically Mr Gold Fucking Standard aka Bernier is the one to pick first right?
I know Chong is the "best" of them but above all, ensuring it's not Leitch or O'Leary is most important to me.
If that was the case then they shouldn't have any issue issuing bonds to the private market. And maybe they could have actually done so just fine. But in that case why is it necessary for the government to intervene and give Bombardier a lower interest rate, when the only thing achieved is reduction in how much of their profits Bombardier has to share with their creditors?
And maybe that would be for the better globally, and would still increase the amount of wealth in the world. Of course we run into an issue where there is no global government to make sure that its distributed more fairly. So governments play these ridiculous games of trying to create the most productive economy within the confines of their border, instead of what might actually be the most productive economy globally.
The Québec government intervention was absolutely necessary because the company was on the brink of bankruptcy at the end of 2015/beginning of 2016, as the cash reserve was depleted. Because the future of the company was in jeopardy, it would have cost a fortune in interest to refinance the debt with bonds.
I'm not quite sure what's the point of the federal government loan. I think it's to throw a small bone at Québec and at the same time appeasing Bay Street because the Global 7000 is a GTA project. Apparently, people on Bay Street aren't happy with Bombardier's dual-class share structure. The thing is, without it, the company would get gobbled up in no time by China. You could say that the Liberals would block the takeover, but would Prime Minister Bernier or O'Leary?
It seems a bit contradictory to argue that the company has a bright future, yet they couldn't borrow cheaply enough. I don't have any reason to believe that the government is better at valuing companies than Bay Street.
Fears of a Chinese takeover seem an insufficient reason to support the entrenchment of a privileged class. I don't see Chinese investment as such a bad thing either, but if we must prevent Chinese takeovers I sure hope we can find a better method than making inequality even worse.
Bay Street feels better management could make Bombardier profitable (so maybe they do think Bombardier has a bright future, they just don't trust current management to do it). Of course they have their own selfish reasons for wanting companies to be more profitable, but if they could turn Bombardier around it would be good for a lot of other people too. The share structure really only benefits one family, and even then they might be richer if somebody else ran their company instead.
In the early 2000s their stock was worth about 25$ for a share it's now 2,35$ that's not what I call a successful business at all. The C-Series was supposed to launch in 2010 and it kept getting delayed. You don't get to bankruptcy randomly. National Post isn't expecting the company to turn a profits on the product until 2020 at the earliest. A lot of pundits and experts didn't think Quebec got at good deal at all with the shares they've got either. It's shares from a spinoff society they've created for the occasion. So the government will be in a bad condition if it fails with the main society completely insulated from the deal.
Aerospace is a special industry. It costs a fortune in R&D and it takes years to start profiting from a project. It's like pharma, but even worse. That's why there are so few big players and they're all backed by big governments. We won't know for another decade if the Cseries was a good move. But the future seems at least brighter than it did 18 months ago.
China would buy it on the cheap for the patents and technology and move everything to China.
No one is forcing anyone to buy Bombardier shares so I'm not sure what equality has to do with this. You know what you're buying before you do. The dual share structure is reflected in the price.
It's not like Bay Street has an amazing record either when it comes to global/international companies. There's very little success actually outside of banks and oil. Large canadian companies are mostly domestic behemoths with little competition.
And for such incompetent managers, the Beaudoin-Bombardier family still managed to create the third biggest commercial aircraft and train manufacturer in the world.
yanipheonu
Member
There desperately needs to be a wider discussion of what the hell "Canadian Values" even mean.
Far as I can tell, it's mostly multiculturalism and the strange sense that "when everyone has their own culture, no one has one shared culture." That and the environment, we tend to write and paint about mountains and lakes.
It is true that aerospace companies in other countries get a lot of subsidies. But R&D heavy industries can exist without government intervention. The US has ridiculous drug prices, but they do create a lot of drugs. At the end of the day this stuff is expensive but potentially very profitable, and somebody has to pay for it, somebody has to take big risks, and somebody gets the profits. Flawed as the US system might be, at least the Pharmaceutical companies are bearing the risk and for as many as there are that are wildly profitable there a lot who go bankrupt. What we absolutely don't want is for the general population to fund R&D and take on the risk that it fails while aerospace companies get the profits.
China has never seemed to care much about patents. And they don't even have the cheapest labour in the world anymore, not by a long shot. They're advantage now is their infrastructure, relative stability and the concentration of a large number of highly specialized factories near each other.
There are a lot of places in the world with cheaper labour, and there always was, even when times were really good and there were a lot of great manufacturing jobs in North America. But we had, and still largely do, have every other advantage (education, infrastructure, institutions, technology, capital etc). High-tech manufacturing is precisely one of the areas where we get to have the high paying jobs poorer countries so desperately want. But they can't because they don't have the wealth, so they offer the only thing they can, ultra cheap labour, in hopes of making enough money to invest in the other stuff.
And instead of trying to compete with them in the one area they have an advantage over us, low wages, we should push our advantage, which is like, every other variable. All this might sound like I'm arguing for supporting Bombardier, but my point is, if these jobs could be done more profitably by moving them elsewhere than domestic owners should do so, just as much as foreign owners. It sucks for the employees in the short term, but in the long term the world would be wealthier as developing countries do what work they can while freeing up developed countries to produce more of the stuff everyone wants but only they can produce. The governments resources would be far better spent helping the unemployed move quickly into producing the things we have a comparative advantage in, and in ensuring that the newly unemployed workers benefit as well from the increase in wealth that might be gained from this reorganization of the worlds resources (this would be a lot easier with a global fiscal policy).
Instead the government makes shitty business deals with Bombardier. It's true nobody is forcing me to personally buy Bombardier stock, and that the share structure is reflected in the price. But maybe it's fair if I think its lame that my government is making bad investments I would never make personally. The government could demand that Bombardier change its share structure if it wants a deal. Of course if Bombardier was willing to do so they could have found other people willing to lend them money. And maybe they would if they didn't know they could reliably wait for the government to give them an unfair deal in their favour, because politically a large loss of jobs would hurt the party in power a lot more than a bad deal.
"Bay street is really bad at business except for these two areas they've been really, really good at". Of course Bay Street isn't a government trying to push the Canadian economy to do work that others can do better. Instead they invest in the companies that will be most profitable. If Canada has a comparative advantage in a few areas than those areas are naturally going to be the ones most represented on the Canadian stock market. And of course the businesses that Bay Street invests in and the businesses listed on Canadian stock exchanges are two distinct things. Canadian resource companies operate all over the world (sometimes doing scummy things like spilling cyanide into rivers), and the Canadian banks are some of the largest US banks too. Blackberry for a while was killing it. Canadian suit manufacturing dominated and destroyed the American suit manufacturing industry. And maybe Bombardier has at times done quite well, but we're doing no favours by babying them and shielding them from having to do better.
This sort of protectionism is how we got such garbage cheese. But Canada has way more farmland per capita than like, any other country in the world. Agrifood is an industry you'd think we'd be killing it in. But shielding that industry from competition has made it so uncompetitive that it might be devastated if it ever did have to compete. Granted it's an industry every other country protects and subsidizes as well. Now imagine if we opened up our borders to foreign subsidized agriculture while everyone else kept their subsidies in place. It would be real bad for some Canadian agricultural sectors, but it would be a transfer of wealth from the taxpayers of foreign countries to our citizens. There would still be a few specific sectors we'd be competitive in, which we might allocate more farmland to instead.
We'll have to disagree on this because you're looking at it ideologically, and that's a perfectly valid way to look at it, while I just see the government helping an important company in an important sector that is going through a bad stretch but still has a bright future, and I'm perfectly okay with that. People always talk about the need to diversify the economy, well aerospace is one of the few non-resource sectors where Canada punches way above its weight (what else? video games? ETA: and suits!). If Bombardier goes under, this sector is gone and it's never coming back.
Well, Bombardier might be one place I could actually get behind an intervention by the government. But definitely not in a way that perpetuates failure while protecting the privileged from the consequences. Maybe Bombardier by all accounts should be doing well, but something is cribbing their style and just throwing money at the problem isn't gonna fix it.
There's a lot of things we should distrust Bay Street on, but on the topic of how to make a company more profitable I do have faith in them. If Canada really is strong in aerospace it would create a great investment opportunity that surely somebody would take up. Or maybe in the absence of the government giving in to the Bombardier family Bay Street could actually force Bombardier to make tough reforms (making a lot of money for themselves in the process if the share price rises, but hey).
My problem with a lot of this stuff is that not only do we see money going to bailing out generally wealthy businessmen when it could be going to those I think are more in need, we also delay the creation and movement into more secure jobs that we'll eventually be forced to do when too many jobs aren't actually net sources of revenue for the government and society.
I don't think Bernier himself is doing it on purpose but I'm pretty sure he has a 4channer on his team. Wasn't he tweeting about "dank memes" last week? No way he comes up with this stuff himself?
Well maybe he does. He's a gold bug libertarian so he probably hangs out on zerohedge or /libertarian to get his fix, and that's where a bunch of these guys hang out as well.
Silver Arrows
Banned
Of course he is. Gotta perpetuate those stupid 50's era gender norms.
matthewwhatever
Member
There's no way this isn't intentional:
And when he's tweeting it at Derek Fildebrandt -- who's essentially a MRA subreddit come to life -- he knows exactly what he's doing.
Right now, it looks like Bernier or O'Leary are the two most likely options, with Bernier probably being a little more likely on account of Quebec's weighting.
That said, it's not a sure thing. He'll have to make the jump from about 30% on the first ballot to 50%, and the road there is incredibly long and winding with 14 candidates on the ballot. If candidates like Peterson, Saxton, Obhrai, etc., are dropping off round by round with less than 1% of the votes each, it'll take forever for there to be a critical mass of voters going one way or another.
If you don't want to vote for the guy who doesn't even live in Canada and isn't planning on moving back, the crazy racist woman, or the MRA goldbug, you could still put together a ballot that has, in some order:
Lisa Raitt
Andrew Scheer
Erin O'Toole
Michael Chong
Rick Peterson
Deepak Obhrai
Admittedly, the last three have zero chance of winning, but as long as you have those first three on there in some order, you'll be doing your part.
I dunno. The carbon tax thing doesn't seem to be stopping a lot of conservatives from putting him on their ballots. Admittedly that's not a representative sample, but I think it'd be biased in the same ways that the leadership vote will be biased with the way its being done, although much more so obviously. And besides the not particularly conservative people you've got people with Bernier first but Chong on there at some point. Some even have O'Leary but also Chong.
And in truth Chong's tax plan is very aggressive which some conservatives really like, and the carbon tax part maybe isn't as repellent as it might seem. More so his more progressive social views seem to be driving away social conservatives.
I still think Bernier will win. Although I'm increasingly leaning towards leaving him off my ballot, and I really hope he doesn't win.
Even if he does win, his ideas are so off the wall, right?
gutter_trash
Banned
Maxime Bernier is the Conservative candidate that bolsters the Conservatives' chances of winning 2019 above other Conservative candidates.
If he gets angry male interneters and Quebec City's radio-poubelle; he will double Stephen Harper's numbers in that province.
He will beat the debt and deficit drum that will play well in Wesetern Canada.
He poses the biggest threat to the Liberal government.
Not O'leary, not Leeichte
-------------
RANT TIME
why the fuck are opposition parties making a big deal about the nomination for the riding of Saint-Laurent? None of them have a chance? what are they afriad of?
LOL
I will re-iterate, Alan DeSousa brings NOTHING to the Liberal Party.
While either Yolande James or Marwah Rizqy would bring allot of value to the future of the party.
DeSousa would just sit there for 6 years than pack it up, go home and collect a fat pension. useless.
If he gets angry male interneters and Quebec City's radio-poubelle; he will double Stephen Harper's numbers in that province.
He will beat the debt and deficit drum that will play well in Wesetern Canada.
He poses the biggest threat to the Liberal government.
Not O'leary, not Leeichte
-------------
RANT TIME
why the fuck are opposition parties making a big deal about the nomination for the riding of Saint-Laurent? None of them have a chance? what are they afriad of?
LOL
I will re-iterate, Alan DeSousa brings NOTHING to the Liberal Party.
While either Yolande James or Marwah Rizqy would bring allot of value to the future of the party.
DeSousa would just sit there for 6 years than pack it up, go home and collect a fat pension. useless.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
But will the fact that he's not a native (or perfectly bilingual) English-speaker hurt him among the Conservative (including ex-Reform) electorate outside Quebec?
After all, the opposite (not a native French speaker or extremely effectively bilingual like Mulroney) may hurt chances in Quebec.
His popularity in Quebec may partially be a Catch-22.
Who's ideas?
A lot of the people in the race want to cut taxes pretty heavily, but for a lot of different reasons. Bernier is a hardcore Libertarian in the worst ways. O'Leary is a corporatist, pro-business but probably actually not particularly pro-market.
Chong is a policy wonk trying to align incentives the way he thinks would be most beneficial for society. Pro-market but not pro-business. And this is something you can see in his backgrounder where he often mentions the way he thinks changes might incentivize people to act. He wants to lower income taxes to encourage people to work more. He wants to double the WITB to, for one, help the working poor out, but also to incentivize people to work. In there he also talks about a shift to consumption taxes that would incentivize people to save more. The specific consumption tax, a carbon tax, would also incentivize people to reduce emissions, whether through more efficient processes or just straight up encouraging people to choose less carbon intensive consumption (maybe you choose to go mountain biking over ATVing).
And you see it in his opposition to government backed mortgage insurance, which encourages banks to take on riskier loans and allocate more of their loans to mortgages (consumption, mostly) vs business loans (investment) that might create more jobs. (Spending on housing does create jobs too eventually, but when it's being done at the expense of investment in other businesses you'd expect to see the economy be more concentrated in housing-related stuff than it would be otherwise, and thus more poorly diversified). This is also a good example of being pro-market but not pro-business, cause the CMHC is a pretty awesome boon to the banks.
More generally you'd expect lowering the barriers to entry to starting a business by making capital more accessible and reducing regulations to reduce profits over the longer term. So maybe someone like O'Leary wants to reduce regulations to boost profits, and it would in the short term. But it would reduce the range of prices that entrenched companies can operate in, where they want to make as much money as possible but not leave room for others to undercut them. And in the absence of other things this would be good for society. Of course these regulations don't exist in the absence of others concerns and maybe a lot of them are worthwhile. But if you can acheive your goals without these negative effects, say, with a carbon tax, that would be ideal.
Pancake Mix
Copied someone else's pancake recipe
"A lot of the people in the race..." is that not crazy when there's less than 2 months left?
Seems so weird that no clear winner has emerged at this point.
Seems so weird that no clear winner has emerged at this point.
gutter_trash
Banned
winner will have bragging rights for beating 13 losers
The CMHC was one of the major factors in our overheating housing market because it was essentially a government backed insurance policy if any mortgage ever went south. These days, CMHC arguably has less of an effect due to tighter lending regulations, especially on the minimum down payments.
Chong's argument sounds good on paper and would've been good policy if it had been introduced years ago...
The minimum down payment was increased to a whopping 10%, and even then only on the portion of a mortgage above $500,000. Privatizing CMHC won't increase the supply of housing, which is ultimately 99% of the problem. But it would cool the ridiculous amount of leverage in housing. I'm amazed when people are afraid of the stock market but are totally fine going 20x on a house.
The issue won't actually be solved in any meaningful way unless municipalities and provinces take actions to increase supply pretty radically. Like, rezone everything to high-density and let developers go wild. I know there's already a huge amount of condos being built, but it's clearly not enough. I don't think the super loose building permits would be enough either. Provincially I'd support a Singapore strategy of having a Crown Corporation building as much housing as possible. Unfortunately what seems much more likely is either a bunch of price controls that only really shift around who gets what supply there is, and maybe even disincentives development and just makes the problem even worse.
Now that's a very biased quote (authoritarianism is a hell of a thing). But my central point is that any policy doesn't focus on increasing supply is just pissing in the wind, probably for political gain. At least we might cool how much people are borrowing to bid for houses (and if everyone bidding for houses is able to borrow about the same amount more than they could have otherwise then easier, larger mortgages don't even really change who gets houses, just how much they pay the seller and the banks). Maybe it's not as big a deal, but "not that bad" isn't a particularly great justification for maintaining a policy, and it being the current status quo doesn't seem sufficient either.
Niki Ashton will apparently enter the NDP leadership race, which now has four candidates. Good that there's at least one woman in the mix.
matthewwhatever
Member
Jagmeet Singh will probably become the fifth (and final, unless Sid Ryan makes good on his threats to run) candidate, but someone on his theoretical campaign team told me that Singh may not jump in until May, after the BC election, since many of his organizers are working on the BC NDP campaign.
It'll be interesting to see what impact he has. From everything I've read, he may actually be the most conservative/centrist person in the race, which may disappoint the NDPers hoping for a Bernie Sanders-type candidate, but he's also most likely to win in a one member, one vote system.
If Chong wants to win, he needs people who are placing him above Bernier and O'Leary. There's no evidence that's happening anywhere. The Mainstreet polls -- which iPolitics have unfortunately put behind a paywall -- don't have him getting any kind of significant first-ballot support, and the people I know who've seen the deeper numbers say that he's just as much of a non-factor on second & third choice ballots, too. I'm not denying that Chong has a surprisingly vocal minority, but there's no reason to believe that they're anything more than just that: a minority.
1) Talk radio listeners and internet trolls aren't a winning coalition. Bernier in a general election will be dead in the water, since the ads basically write themselves: he wants to gut the CPP, he wants to gut healthcare, he wants to sell off the CBC, he wants to kill off dairy and egg farmers, etc. He's far more charismatic than anyone in the race apart from O'Leary, but I don't think his schtick will translate well to a broader audience.
2) Riding nomination battles make for good media fodder, even though there's no requirement that parties even hold open nominations. Opposition parties are playing it up in the hopes of pulling an Outremont -- that is, flipping a seat that's been with one party forever.
It'll be interesting to see what impact he has. From everything I've read, he may actually be the most conservative/centrist person in the race, which may disappoint the NDPers hoping for a Bernie Sanders-type candidate, but he's also most likely to win in a one member, one vote system.
If Chong wants to win, he needs people who are placing him above Bernier and O'Leary. There's no evidence that's happening anywhere. The Mainstreet polls -- which iPolitics have unfortunately put behind a paywall -- don't have him getting any kind of significant first-ballot support, and the people I know who've seen the deeper numbers say that he's just as much of a non-factor on second & third choice ballots, too. I'm not denying that Chong has a surprisingly vocal minority, but there's no reason to believe that they're anything more than just that: a minority.
1) Talk radio listeners and internet trolls aren't a winning coalition. Bernier in a general election will be dead in the water, since the ads basically write themselves: he wants to gut the CPP, he wants to gut healthcare, he wants to sell off the CBC, he wants to kill off dairy and egg farmers, etc. He's far more charismatic than anyone in the race apart from O'Leary, but I don't think his schtick will translate well to a broader audience.
2) Riding nomination battles make for good media fodder, even though there's no requirement that parties even hold open nominations. Opposition parties are playing it up in the hopes of pulling an Outremont -- that is, flipping a seat that's been with one party forever.
gutter_trash
Banned
meh, her meddling into the US's Democratic Primary rubbed me the wrong way,
don't meddle in other countries' electoral process and their party nominations.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-mp-niki-ashton-supports-bernie-sanders-1.3619634
going to a foreign country to knock on doors to campaign for a foreign candidate is a big NO NO in my book in terms of a democratically elected representative meddling in a foreign country's affairs.
the debate about open nominations is give or take;
sometimes the leader is right (Melanie Joly), sometimes the leader is wrong (Eve Adams).
as for Saint-Laurent; you have two young intelligent women who offer long term value that is good for the party. While the candidate that was rejected offers cronyism, short term bench warming and will just collect his pension in 6 years time into retirement
IMO, each party should have the right to reject candidates who doesn't fit their needs
Yeah, the downpayment locks a lot of people out of real estate -- as it should -- because of the upfront capital cost. Compare that with the stock market where the upfront cost is extremely low.
(As an aside, I like to use https://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-down-payment as a calculator as I've been thinking of buying a property lately... but I'm already a disciplined investor so the benefits of owning real estate would be very low.)
RANT TIME
why the fuck are opposition parties making a big deal about the nomination for the riding of Saint-Laurent? None of them have a chance? what are they afriad of?
LOL
I will re-iterate, Alan DeSousa brings NOTHING to the Liberal Party.
While either Yolande James or Marwah Rizqy would bring allot of value to the future of the party.
DeSousa would just sit there for 6 years than pack it up, go home and collect a fat pension. useless.[/QUOTE]
It's because it's the opposition job to keep hammering at the governing party whatever the reason is. In this case they will keep pressing on this issue until cracks starts to show and paint the Liberal party in an unflattering light. The media are already starting to try to pile on. They are analyzing the previous stuff she said (Niqab shameful debate) and also her apparently illegal ads campaign now running in her riding. I think the the party is right to refuse a candidate if he doesn't align with the party's vision. DeSousa is damaged goods anyway and the liberals don't need an ethically dubious candidate.
I hope Yoland James wins because Infoman will be interesting. He'll have many episodes of Le Club des Ex to present hahaha.
why the fuck are opposition parties making a big deal about the nomination for the riding of Saint-Laurent? None of them have a chance? what are they afriad of?
LOL
I will re-iterate, Alan DeSousa brings NOTHING to the Liberal Party.
While either Yolande James or Marwah Rizqy would bring allot of value to the future of the party.
DeSousa would just sit there for 6 years than pack it up, go home and collect a fat pension. useless.[/QUOTE]
It's because it's the opposition job to keep hammering at the governing party whatever the reason is. In this case they will keep pressing on this issue until cracks starts to show and paint the Liberal party in an unflattering light. The media are already starting to try to pile on. They are analyzing the previous stuff she said (Niqab shameful debate) and also her apparently illegal ads campaign now running in her riding. I think the the party is right to refuse a candidate if he doesn't align with the party's vision. DeSousa is damaged goods anyway and the liberals don't need an ethically dubious candidate.
I hope Yoland James wins because Infoman will be interesting. He'll have many episodes of Le Club des Ex to present hahaha.
The CPC has experienced a massive collapse in BC according to Nanos recent tracking poll while the Liberals are polling well in their strongest regions like Quebec, Atlantic Canada and BC. The CPC is leading in the Praries, AB and Ontario.
Link
http://assets.nationalnewswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170303-Political-Package-Eng.pdf
Here's the historic region, age and etc data from Nanos.
http://nanosresearch.com/data
Link
http://assets.nationalnewswatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/20170303-Political-Package-Eng.pdf
Here's the historic region, age and etc data from Nanos.
http://nanosresearch.com/data
gutter_trash
Banned
Liberals knew that DeSousa would have used his City Councilor weight to tip the scale on the nomination.
Trudeau likes both James and Rizqui who fit better into his vision of building the party for long term. Yolande James obviously will win and is the favorite.
DeSousa can go join the NDP or the Conservatives for all I care, I am pretty sure he will Mulcair his way and shop for a party come 2019.
Yolande James is media savvy, perfectly bilingual, a good communicator and experienced in parliamentary debates
fuckin' Ontario
thankfully Age 60+ have Trudeau's back
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Ontario's support for the CPC comes from the general disdain for Kathleen Wynne and the provincial Liberals than anything the Trudeau government has done thus far. Come the next provincial election (i.e. when people inevitably screw up and realize voting for the Ontario PCs was a bad idea/when the Ontario PCs screw up [again] and give the NDP or Liberals a minority government), I imagine the overall attitude will change long before we have to worry about the federal election.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked