Support NeoGAF

[gutter_trash]

Bloc Leader Martine Oullet oddly weighs in on the NDP leadership race and takes jabs at Jagmeet Singh.

????????????????????????????????????

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/0...for-quebec_a_23214013/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

why the fuck would a 4th place loser regional nationaliste party leader weigh in on the 3rd place party's leadership race?

 

[Pedrito]

Bloc Leader Martine Oullet oddly weighs in on the NDP leadership race and takes jabs at Jagmeet Singh.

????????????????????????????????????

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/0...for-quebec_a_23214013/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

why the fuck would a 4th place loser regional nationaliste party leader weigh in on the 3rd place party's leadership race?

Bloc Québécois Leader Martine Ouellet says NDP leadership hopeful Jagmeet Singh is promoting Sikhism, and she believes his candidacy is testament to the "rise of the religious left."

Wut?
Not sure who, between her and Nathalie Roy, is more obsessed with "mah ostentatious signs"?

 

[matthewwhatever]

why the fuck would a 4th place loser regional nationaliste party leader weigh in on the 3rd place party's leadership race?

Have you already forgotten the article you posted just a few days ago?

From Fading NDP presence in Quebec could give breath of life to a moribund Bloc Québécois

In the last campaign Nantel was one of a handful of Quebec New Democrat candidates who broke ranks and came out in support of the proposed Conservative niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies.

Back in January, the local media in Nantel's Montreal South Shore riding reported that he was considering a run for the Parti Québécois in next year's Quebec election. On Wednesday he described that scenario as ”hypothetical."

Nantel is a popular, hard-working MP. He would be a catch for a momentum-hungry PQ for more reasons than one.

His federal riding includes much of the provincial riding of Vachon. That happens to be the seat currently held in the National Assembly by Martine Ouellet, the latest leader of the Bloc Québécois. She is expected to vacate it to run federally in 2019.

In the last federal election, Nantel kept his federal seat with a slim 700-vote majority. The Bloc won a solid 27 per cent of the vote. If he were to make the jump to the provincial arena and a solid PQ riding, he would in the process provide Ouellet with as clear a federal run in Longueuil-Saint-Hubert in 2019 as she could hope for.

You don't need to work very hard to connect the dots. Nantel desperately wants to join the PQ, and is looking for a reason to do it. Ouellet needs to make the jump to federal politics. If they trade seats, they both get what they want. Like Hebert says, it's a win-win quid pro quo.

 

[gutter_trash]

on a political level, its retarded.

Nationalistes are a mess, bouncing from Left to Right to Left to Right.

 

[Pedrito]

The traditional political spectrum doesn't make much sense these days in this era of identity politics.
It's now almost 100% correlated to one's opinion toward immigration/religion (well, specific religions...).

 

[maharg]

I think that's Singh's only shot at winning, since -- at least according to Mainstreet's polling -- his support vanishes when you get down to voters' 2nd choices. If he breaks 40% after the first ballot and Angus is well behind him, then he should be able to squeak by in week 2. If it's closer than that (say, both Angus and Singh are in the mid-30s), I think Singh is going to have a much harder time winning over existing party members (as opposed to new sign-ups).

That said, Chantal Hebert makes a pretty convincing argument that he could win on the first ballot, if he really did sign-up so many people concentrated in just the GTA and Vancouver.

She also sort of touches on this:



The good thing about the CPC system was that it forced them to act like a national party. Even if Scheer ultimately ended up winning thanks to a few disgruntled dairy farmers in Quebec, it still meant that the CPC was building itself up in regions where they weren't as strong. (If I'm not mistaken, the Liberals had a similar system, which is how they were able to have so many candidates picked so far in advance of the 2015 election.) By making it so that the leadership can be won just by focusing all your efforts in the one or two biggest cities in Canada, you don't do much to build your party nationally. Yes, the GTA and Greater Vancouver have a decent amount of seats between them, but becoming the party of Toronto & Montreal is what nearly killed the Liberals. I know national campaigns are expensive, and that the NDP is woefully short on funds, but I think that 1M1V system is kind of antiquated.

At the same time, CPC success was still predicated on them winning in areas that they were predictably strong in. The prairies and Ontario burbs. Is there any reason to believe any outcomes would have been different with 1m1v through to the end of Harper's tenure?

Harper still would have won the leadership (Ontario born, Alberta raised, moderate surface/reactionary core). He still would have won elections (on the back of the prairies and ontario).

So in that sense it hasn't really been tested and proven better. And it's not like there aren't ways it can be gamed into negative outcomes for the party (ridings that will never produce an MP have an outsized say and are probably vulnerable to hijacking due to low membership).

 

[matthewwhatever]

on a political level, its retarded.

Nationalistes are a mess, bouncing from Left to Right to Left to Right.

A political level is the only level on which it makes sense, actually. The PQ/BQ are languishing in the polls, and they know that there's a constituency out there for xenophobic/racist appeals -- Marois may have gotten crushed in 2014, but she still did better than the Bloc and PQ have done in several years. They also know they lost a lot of voters to the NDP in 2011, and that most of those voters have since abandoned the NDP. If their only goal is regaining official party status, I can see why the BQ would hitch their wagon to the message of, "The NDP doesn't understand Quebec, and the fact they chose a leader like Jagmeet Singh is proof!"

From the perspective of ideological consistency, it makes no sense. From the perspective of human decency, it's appalling. But politically, you can see why they'd do it.

 

[gutter_trash]

A political level is the only level on which it makes sense, actually. The PQ/BQ are languishing in the polls, and they know that there's a constituency out there for xenophobic/racist appeals -- Marois may have gotten crushed in 2014, but she still did better than the Bloc and PQ have done in several years. They also know they lost a lot of voters to the NDP in 2011, and that most of those voters have since abandoned the NDP. If their only goal is regaining official party status, I can see why the BQ would hitch their wagon to the message of, "The NDP doesn't understand Quebec, and the fact they chose a leader like Jagmeet Singh is proof!"

From the perspective of ideological consistency, it makes no sense. From the perspective of human decency, it's appalling. But politically, you can see why they'd do it.

I have no idea who the Bloc are competing with anymore, The NDP? or The Conservatives? or both?

 

[gabbo]

I have no idea who the Bloc are competing with anymore, The NDP? or The Conservatives? or both?

Themselves really, and whoever the governing party is.

 

[killer rin]

on a political level, its retarded.

Nationalistes are a mess, bouncing from Left to Right to Left to Right.

To be fair, this is what you wished for. You wanted the NDP gone in the province, the end consequence is that the Bloc picks up more seats again. In the grand scheme of things, better the NDP which makes useless platitudes to nationalists they will never act on to the Bloc gaining more power and actually causing the country harm.

 

[CazTGG]

on a political level, its retarded.

Nationalistes are a mess, bouncing from Left to Right to Left to Right.

Don't use that word. Also, not all NDP members are or have left-wing policies, i.e. Mulcair's respect for Margaret Thatcher.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Stephen Gordon: Upper middle class parents are a force for social immobility

As much as I appreciate my RESP's they are pretty regressive and that money should probably just be a universal grant or something.

 

[Mr.Mike]

Quebec man pretty sure hour-long explanation of Quiet Revolution will convince people he’s not racist

 

[matthewwhatever]

At the same time, CPC success was still predicated on them winning in areas that they were predictably strong in. The prairies and Ontario burbs. Is there any reason to believe any outcomes would have been different with 1m1v through to the end of Harper's tenure?

Harper still would have won the leadership (Ontario born, Alberta raised, moderate surface/reactionary core). He still would have won elections (on the back of the prairies and ontario).

So in that sense it hasn't really been tested and proven better. And it's not like there aren't ways it can be gamed into negative outcomes for the party (ridings that will never produce an MP have an outsized say and are probably vulnerable to hijacking due to low membership).

At the riding level, there's certainly a risk of groups hijacking the process, but I don't think this is possible when you're talking about the leadership of a national party, since the numbers are so huge. When David Orchard tried taking over the PCs in the late '90s/early 2000s, he failed, and that was with that party on death's door and membership way down. More recently, we'll never know how many left-leaning non-CPCers joined that party in an attempt to stop Kevin O'Leary/Kellie Leitch, but the fact the process still came down to Maxime Bernier and Andrew Scheer -- two very conservative candidates -- suggests they didn't join in sufficient numbers to move the party left in any discernible way. Even the single-issue groups with the best organization nationally, the anti-choice religious nuts, had to settle for the guy who was, at best, their third choice, since Pierre Lemieux and Brad Trost couldn't get enough members under the system to win.

I'd argue that 1M1V is more likely to produce a hijacked contest, going by the experience at riding levels. In the last election in Nepean, for example, there were plenty of allegations that the successful candidate signed up members from his church en masse, bused them in to the nomination vote, and won over the party's preferred candidate. The provincial PCs here are having similar issues, as establishment candidates are being upended by much more conservative candidates who are able to mobilize specific religious or ethnic blocs. To bring it over to the NDP, I've even had a few NDPers grumble to me how "unfair" it is that Singh has been able to sign up so many members from the Sikh community, since it turns the leadership contest into a numbers game of who can sell the most volume, without any regard for how geographically dispersed their support is. (They all complained specifically and at length about "the gurdwaras", which...now that I think of it, has some undertones that I'm not entirely comfortable with.)

I'd also say that the Liberals success in the last election shows how valuable it is to force your party to rebuild on riding-by-riding level. Sure, having someone like Trudeau doing the rebuilding helps a lot, but I don't think they'd have been as prepared for the 2015 election if they hadn't first been forced to build up their organization in all 308 ridings.

I have no idea who the Bloc are competing with anymore, The NDP? or The Conservatives? or both?

I'd say they probably don't know themselves, which is why they're having so much trouble justifying their existence.

 

[Terrell]

Regarding the NDP leadership race, I think I would be banking on Angus to win if this was ranked balloting. However, this weird multi-week voting process seems like it will lead to many supporters of dropped candidates simply not voting again, rather than transferring over to one of the remaining candidates. That seems like Singh's best bet, to me: make it to the third ballot and count on his supporters being the most energized to keep voting.

Don't bank on that. A fair number of Niki Ashton's millennial supporters will probably transfer to Singh, and she is the likely candidate to be first to be dropped off the ballot, so it will all depend on where he ranks on the first ballot. If he's got strong first-ballot numbers, even a little bit of support from the knocked-out candidate will greatly benefit him.

The good thing about the CPC system was that it forced them to act like a national party. Even if Scheer ultimately ended up winning thanks to a few disgruntled dairy farmers in Quebec, it still meant that the CPC was building itself up in regions where they weren't as strong. (If I'm not mistaken, the Liberals had a similar system, which is how they were able to have so many candidates picked so far in advance of the 2015 election.) By making it so that the leadership can be won just by focusing all your efforts in the one or two biggest cities in Canada, you don't do much to build your party nationally. Yes, the GTA and Greater Vancouver have a decent amount of seats between them, but becoming the party of Toronto & Montreal is what nearly killed the Liberals. I know national campaigns are expensive, and that the NDP is woefully short on funds, but I think that 1M1V system is kind of antiquated.

How a leader is elected does not influence how they will lead the party. What you do once the leadership is won is how you build (or lose) the party.

The CPC has it worse off, considering their election ended up being entirely based on the ideological differences in the party and an exceptionally close vote that whittled down to an aggressively social-conservative leader that's going to be torn apart in election debates, much like the media tore him apart for his posturing stances during the first day back in the HoC.

Bloc Leader Martine Oullet oddly weighs in on the NDP leadership race and takes jabs at Jagmeet Singh.

????????????????????????????????????

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/0...for-quebec_a_23214013/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

why the fuck would a 4th place loser regional nationaliste party leader weigh in on the 3rd place party's leadership race?

The fact that she claims his very existence in politics as a practicing Sikh is a violation of the separation of church and state is a bridge too far, and decades too late, which makes it a racially motivated statement. I don't imagine it wins her points with the Quebec that she clearly thinks doesn't exist, since she seems to believe that she speaks for the province in totality.

 

[Sean C]

Don't bank on that. A fair number of Niki Ashton's millennial supporters will probably transfer to Singh, and she is the likely candidate to be first to be dropped off the ballot, so it will all depend on where he ranks on the first ballot.

Policy-wise, Singh seems the most distant from Ashton of any of the candidates.

Though you may be right that many Ashton supporters disregarding ideological concerns.

I have no idea who the Bloc are competing with anymore, The NDP? or The Conservatives? or both?

Both. Nationalism isn't intrinsically right or left wing, which is one of the main reasons Quebec politics is so scrambled, because orienting everything around nationalism makes it harder to have debates around every other issue.

 

[cryptosporidium]

The traditional political spectrum doesn't make much sense these days in this era of identity politics.
It's now almost 100% correlated to one's opinion toward immigration/religion (well, specific religions...).

Its why i fucking hate it and is the reason I will bring my ideal political spectrum based on government overreach and size as the recognized form.


Anarchism farthest right, complete government control over all commerce and property etc like Socialism, or a Monarchy maybe, farthest left. Welfare liberal economies like Canada and Europe I would most likely use as the center if not China, US would probably be center right.

With

 

[Dr.Guru of Peru]

I'd come up with a less snarky response with your "how can Trudope and Bill More Money For The Government be rich but want to make rich people pay more" anti-intellectualism post like how advocating for the wealthy to pay more taxes doesn't preclude one from also making a sizable income, but if I may direct with you: You're being obtuse and willfully misrepresenting Morneau and the Liberal's proposals.

Sorry, you have to be right to be snarky. Or at the very least have some semblance of an idea as to what you're replying to.

I'll say it again: the new tax reforms will grandfather in old corporations. Morneau and Trudea have savings held personal corporations. These savings will be grandfathered in and their profits continued to be taxed at the small business tax rate. On the other hand, all new investments will have their profits subject to the personal tax rate. In both cases, this is new money we're talking about. Do I need to continue to spell out how this demonstrates a conflict of interest?

And for the record, I generally support "Trudope" and have only ever voted for one political party my entire life.

Bill Morneau's proposals will change the tax treatment of CCPCs to close loopholes that currently allow them be used as what can only be described as a tax shelter by wealthy individuals. To keep this explanation short (and understandable to someone who doesn't have a background in accounting), CCPCs are not intentionally designed to provide a lower tax bracket, they're supposed to limit a business owner's liability, similar to the United States limited liability corporation.

This is nonsense. The government designs tax structures all the time to distort and shape economic activity. Even the CRAs own website touts the tax benefits of incorporation.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cd-dgc.nsf/eng/cs06641.html#toc-01

However, they have and continue to be exploited by high-earning individuals (read: not small businesses) such as doctors and lawyers to allow them to pay less in taxable income through a combination of income splitting with one's spouse and shifting the type of earned income from one type of income (ex: employment, interest income, 100% taxable) to another (ex: capital gains, only 50% taxable) to lower the amount of income that can be taxed. These techniques are a form of what's called tax avoidance, sometimes used interchangeably with the term tax planning. Put another way, it's why simply increasing taxes on our top earners that some have suggested as an alternative is an ineffective strategy in practice as high-income earners will exploit loopholes like the ones that CCPCs provide to pay less in taxes than they would otherwise.

You haven't presented any new information here, beyond (mis)characterising doctor's offices and law firms as "not small businesses". Please note: yes they are.

Morneau's proposals, assuming no other additions are made, will remove many of these loopholes that allow wealthy individuals to take advantage of CCPCs as a form of tax avoidance. And it is indisputable that they are the ones who are currently exploiting CCPCs: Less than 5% and 10% of those earning $27,500 and $68,800 are owners of CCPCs respectively. Compare this to the 1% and 0.1%, of whom over 50% and 70% currently own one for the previously stated reasons (Source *Note* This will link to a PDF download).
There are, of course, other matters that the wealthy have exploited to hoard their income and reduce the taxes they pay like the 20-year rule that should also be removed along with addressing other forms of tax avoidance, but Morneau's proposal is a form of generating tax fairness, not unfairness. If you're going to be paying more if/when these proposals become law, you're doing pretty well for yourself.

Short version: Morneau plans on closing loopholes that six-figure salary earners have exploited to pay less taxes as a means of reducing income equality and ensuring the 1% and .1% pay their fair share since increasing taxes on that group in of itself will inherently lead to them sheltering more of their income. The proposal will not affect the livelihood of current business owners nor will it harm the lower or middle class.

I've never disputed that these changes will adversely effect high income earners. What I've disputed is that they would hurt the wealthy the most - they wont.

I see your edit that fails to address any of my points and raise you a <citation needed>.

There is no reliable way to keep track of these numbers because the phenomenon is so rare. The government itself only has figures for the amount of revenue they're losing out on for passive investments and income sprinkling: I've seen estimates of $1-2 billion for the former, and $250-500 million on the latter, but no estimates for this. If it was a common enough problem, you would assume the government would have numbers available. In the meantime, the best we can do is to poll accountants who dabble in personal corporations. My own personal polling has led me to believe that the practice is rarely done.

Also, my edit was made 2 hours before you made your post. How the heck was I supposed to address it?

 

[matthewwhatever]

So Gerry Ritz tweeted this last night:

And then his apology tweet just said that his tweet wasn't reflective of the role the Minister plays.

Between this and Scheer doing nothing about Lynn Beyak, the CPC is doing a bad job at keeping their regressive eruptions in check.

How a leader is elected does not influence how they will lead the party. What you do once the leadership is won is how you build (or lose) the party.

The CPC has it worse off, considering their election ended up being entirely based on the ideological differences in the party and an exceptionally close vote that whittled down to an aggressively social-conservative leader that's going to be torn apart in election debates, much like the media tore him apart for his posturing stances during the first day back in the HoC.

To your first point, that's absolutely fair -- there's nothing that precludes a leader from rebuilding the party after he wins. It's just a lot easier to get your entire membership working on it during a leadership contest, when people are willing to devote time and money, than afterwards, when they aren't paying the same level of attention.

To your second...I think you're vastly overestimating the importance of the media's reporting on what goes on in the House. If QP mattered or gave a preview of election debates, we'd be talking about PM Mulcair right now. Moreover, the party didn't come out *that* divided. Yes the vote was close, and yes Bernier was out on his own on a few things (supply management, health care, etc.), but for the most part, they converged around the same policy positions. The CPC is also still flush with cash, and they kept on raking in money throughout their leadership contest. Their base is still pretty solid: Scheer didn't give them much of a bump, but their core number of around 30% hasn't budged since the election, really. By contrast, the NDP is broke, there's a good chance their next leader will be out of step with the membership on a major policy plank (OAS/means-testing), and their poll numbers show them winning less seats than they have now. Obviously, it's a long time until the next election, and things could change wildly in a short amount of time, but as of today, I'd say the CPC is in a much better spot than the NDP.

 

[Random Human]

So Gerry Ritz tweeted this last night:



And then his apology tweet just said that his tweet wasn't reflective of the role the Minister plays.

Between this and Scheer doing nothing about Lynn Beyak, the CPC is doing a bad job at keeping their regressive eruptions in check.

I don't even understand what he's saying.

But like I said a while ago, I think Scheer is going to have a hell of a time controlling the regressive elements. They've wanted to get out for a while, and the only reason Harper kept them at bay was the prospect of winning majorities.

 

[CazTGG]

Well...this might have changed the NDP race a bit if it happened earlier, but it's likely too late: Nathan Cullen endorses Jagmeet Singh for NDP leadership

Speaking of the Cons, they're down one point since the last federal election while the Liberals are two points ahead. NDP down 4 points: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-federal-polls-taxes-1.4296602.

EDIT: In Senate news, more calls for Lynn Beyak to resign or be removed: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/beyak-senate-committee-1.4298801

 

[firehawk12]

So the PQ is getting involved with Catalonia because of the obvious sovereigntist ties, but it still seems kind of silly.

Policy-wise, Singh seems the most distant from Ashton of any of the candidates.

Though you may be right that many Ashton supporters disregarding ideological concerns.

Both. Nationalism isn't intrinsically right or left wing, which is one of the main reasons Quebec politics is so scrambled, because orienting everything around nationalism makes it harder to have debates around every other issue.

I know people who voted Ashton 1 and left Singh off the ballot. lol

 

[Sean C]

I don't even understand what he's saying.

"Climate Barbie" is, I assume, a demeaning reference to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna.

Speaking of the Cons, they're down one point since the last federal election while the Liberals are two points ahead. NDP down 4 points: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-federal-polls-taxes-1.4296602.

While opposing tax increases is the Conservatives' raison d'etre, I think it's kind of insane for the Tories to be going so all-in on the small business thing, because the easy Liberal response (which Trudeau has already used in QP) is that they want businessmen to pay the same tax rate as workers. There are a lot more workers than people taking advantage of this tax loophole, so this seems like an issue where the Conservatives are inadvertently walking themselves into an electorally indefensible position.

 

[AuthenticM]

CBC: "Four canadians out of ten think science is a matter of opinion"

Four Canadians out of ten shouldn't have the right to vote.

 

[Pedrito]

"Climate Barbie" is the nickname the clever folks at Rebel came up with months ago for McKenna.

Ritz got it there. Add him to the list of fans from the CPC.

 

[CazTGG]

CBC: "Four canadians out of ten think science is a matter of opinion"

Four Canadians out of ten shouldn't have the right to vote.

Just a reminder that some of these people can operate motor vehicles.

 

[AuthenticM]

Just a reminder that some of these people can operate motor vehicles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P7_t4-WsB8

 

[Silent Chief]

You haven't presented any new information here, beyond (mis)characterising doctor's offices and law firms as "not small businesses". Please note: yes they are.

Some are more businesses than others.
Conceptually, a business who gets all of its revenues from a single entity and employs a single person is less a business than a person who holds several jobs.
Some doctors don't have offices. Their private business is paid by the hospital in which they work. They are contractors.

The government creates the rules and is entitled to change them.
2 single people who have 2 kids together pays a lot less taxes than a couple with 2 kids.
You just need one of the 2 persons to have its residence somewhere else and Duffy has demonstrated that residency is a nebulous concept.

As we moved towards global markets and service industries, it makes less sense to tax every businesses the same. What businesses have a positive impact on the economy? The ones that export goods and the ones that employ people. What businesses have the least impact on the economy and therefore should be taxed the most? Businesses that provide services locally. Even if you produce goods locally, someone else can still export them, but you can't resell services. Doctors and lawyers have a captive market. They don't produce wealth, they just collect it on the basis of their self managed scarcity. Doctors don't even collect the GST, do they?

What's wrong with fairness? Why can't the same investment rules apply to everybody?
These days, employees are often taking more risks than employers.

 

[matthewwhatever]

While opposing tax increases is the Conservatives' raison d'etre, I think it's kind of insane for the Tories to be going so all-in on the small business thing, because the easy Liberal response (which Trudeau has already used in QP) is that they want businessmen to pay the same tax rate as workers. There are a lot more workers than people taking advantage of this tax loophole, so this seems like an issue where the Conservatives are inadvertently walking themselves into an electorally indefensible position.

Did you read Chantal Hebert's column yesterday? She took the same position as you -- that it doesn't seem like Scheer thought through where this leads his party. Seeing as the CPC's success is contingent in part on pushing left-leaning voters from the Liberals to the NDP, going all-in on being the party of the 1% seems like an odd strategy -- it's harder to loosen those voters if they believe that the CPC is a hard-right, GOP-style threat to Canada.

And speaking of Scheer not thinking his positon through: Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer won't post details of private fundraisers

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, whose party attacked the Liberal government for months for holding cash-for-access fundraisers, says he won't post details of his own private fundraising events.

...

Conservative Party spokesman Cory Hann initially denied that Mr. Scheer held a private fundraiser with real estate executives. He later confirmed that Mr. Scheer held a fundraiser on May 17 in Toronto after The Globe presented him with confirmation from one of the attendees. Mr. Scheer won the party leadership on May 27.

Mr. Scheer said this week he should not be bound by the same ethical standards he demanded of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during the Liberal cash-for-access scandal, because the Conservatives are not in government.

Amazing.

"Climate Barbie" is the nickname the clever folks at Rebel came up with months ago for McKenna.

Ritz got it there. Add him to the list of fans from the CPC.

While that's the most likely explanation, it's worth noting that "____ Barbie" has been an insult in Canadian politics since at least Belinda Stronach 15 years ago, when she was being called Parliament Hill Barbie. Blatant misogyny wasn't just invented by Rebel Media!

Well...this might have changed the NDP race a bit if it happened earlier, but it's likely too late: Nathan Cullen endorses Jagmeet Singh for NDP leadership

Speaking of the Cons, they're down one point since the last federal election while the Liberals are two points ahead. NDP down 4 points: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-federal-polls-taxes-1.4296602.

EDIT: In Senate news, more calls for Lynn Beyak to resign or be removed: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/beyak-senate-committee-1.4298801

Right now is a weird time to be endorsing someone -- like you said, it's probably too late to make a difference, plus it makes it look like you're jumping on the bandwagon at the very last second, *plus* it makes you look like an idiot if you jump in at such a late stage and back someone who doesn't win. The counter would be that it gives you a higher-profile endorsement right when people are casting their ballots, but I'm skeptical that it has the impact now that it would've had, say, a month or two ago.

And for the polls, this one shows a nightmare scenario for the CPC:

If they're getting walloped among people aged 60+ -- the age cohort that tends to vote most reliably, and should, in theory, be more open to the Conservatives than anyone else -- they're screwed.

 

[gutter_trash]

So the PQ is getting involved with Catalonia because of the obvious sovereigntist ties, but it still seems kind of silly.


I know people who voted Ashton 1 and left Singh off the ballot. lol

They have been polling in 3rd place for over 9 months trending. They are descending into irrelivency

 

[Buba Big Guns]

damn...old people love Trudeau

 

[matthewwhatever]

damn...old people love Trudeau

By comparison to where things stood just before the 2015 election campaign:

It should be an age range where the CPC does really well...but that's clearly not the case right now.

 

[Mr.Mike]

CETA in effect today as Canada-EU trade pact comes into force

...

As of Thursday, over 98 per cent of Canadian goods will be able to enter the EU without tariffs, compared with only 25 per cent a day earlier,
...

The deal not only clears the way for goods, which Canada exported $42 billion worth of last year, but also codifies access to services, which Canadian companies sold an additional $18 billion worth in 2016, said Evans.
...

The deal will also mean Canadian companies can bid for work at all levels of the EU government procurement market, which the federal government says is worth an estimated $3.3 trillion annually.

The agreement is a two-way street though, with EU companies also gaining access and creating more competition in the Canadian market.
...

Overall, the trade agreement could increase bilateral trade by 20 per cent annually and boost Canada's income by $12 billion annually, according to a joint Canada-EU study.

The study suggested the economic benefit of the agreement would be equivalent to creating almost 80,000 new jobs or increasing the average Canadian household's annual income by $1,000.

 

[AuthenticM]

If they're getting walloped among people aged 60+ -- the age cohort that tends to vote most reliably, and should, in theory, be more open to the Conservatives than anyone else -- they're screwed.

Good. Fuck the CPC. I hope it disbands.

 

[SRG01]

Trade pact between Canada and EU now in effect as CETA officially in force Thursday

Does CETA reduce import tariffs and duties? I'd like to import some European coffees...

edit: Also, once I ordered something from the UK and it arrived by Royal Air mail... was literally faster than US or cross-Canada shipping.

 

[CazTGG]

damn...old people love Trudeau

Even Grandpa Jones can groove to the sweet jives of Trudeamania 2.0!

And speaking of Scheer not thinking his positon through: Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer won’t post details of private fundraisers

Scheer incompetence.

 

[Fou-Lu]

CETA in effect today as Canada-EU trade pact comes into force

This is pretty big news! Should it get its own thread?

 

[killer rin]

This is pretty big news! Should it get its own thread?

I think so. Pretty major news

 

[CazTGG]

So, we all expect this to be the case, one only needs to look at how long the original took to draft, but you can hear it from the experts now too!: Year-end deadline for NAFTA renegotiations looking impossible.

 

[Mr.Mike]

This is pretty big news! Should it get its own thread?

I think so. Pretty major news

I made a thread.

Does CETA reduce import tariffs and duties? I'd like to import some European coffees...

Well, this is one of the examples on the European side.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Dianne Watts, a CPCer from BC, is resigning her seat to run for the BC Liberal leadership. In the iPolitics story (which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall) they point out that Scheer's team wasn't prepared for it at all, since they just made her part of his shadow cabinet.

Watts won her riding in part because of her personal popularity (she was a former mayor of Surrey), and in part because she spent more than double what her opponents did. She only won by 3 points, though, so I think the Liberals will be going hard after the seat.

 

[gabbo]

Dianne Watts, a CPCer from BC, is resigning her seat to run for the BC Liberal leadership. In the iPolitics story (which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall) they point out that Scheer's team wasn't prepared for it at all, since they just made her part of his shadow cabinet.

Watts won her riding in part because of her personal popularity (she was a former mayor of Surrey), and in part because she spent more than double what her opponents did. She only won by 3 points, though, so I think the Liberals will be going hard after the seat.

Anything to get a rise out of Scheer is fine by me.

 

[mo60]

Rick fraser left the UCP caucus and is now an independenrt.
http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...-focus-on-divisive-politics-hurting-alberta-2

 

[Tiktaalik]

Dianne Watts, a CPCer from BC, is resigning her seat to run for the BC Liberal leadership. In the iPolitics story (which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall) they point out that Scheer's team wasn't prepared for it at all, since they just made her part of his shadow cabinet.

Watts won her riding in part because of her personal popularity (she was a former mayor of Surrey), and in part because she spent more than double what her opponents did. She only won by 3 points, though, so I think the Liberals will be going hard after the seat.

Traditionally this seat has been a solid Conservative stronghold where in the past nobody backbenchers would effortlessly win landslide victories, so it was actually pretty shocking to me at how well the Liberals did here in the last election.

Watts actually got into a little bit of controversy in the last election due to her anti-terrorism mailers being considered over the top. That may have impacted her performance.

The area however is changing demographically, and like many areas of Surrey is becoming younger. This may make the riding more genuinely competitive for the Liberals than it has been in the past.

 

[maharg]

Rick fraser left the UCP caucus and is now an independenrt.
http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pm...-focus-on-divisive-politics-hurting-alberta-2

Sounds like Alberta Party rhetoric tbh.

 

[CazTGG]

Here's an interesting analysis on the complaints about the small tax proposals: With proposed Liberal reforms impacting less than 10% of small businesses, this tax revolt will fail

 

[Leeness]

Dianne Watts, a CPCer from BC, is resigning her seat to run for the BC Liberal leadership. In the iPolitics story (which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall) they point out that Scheer's team wasn't prepared for it at all, since they just made her part of his shadow cabinet.

Watts won her riding in part because of her personal popularity (she was a former mayor of Surrey), and in part because she spent more than double what her opponents did. She only won by 3 points, though, so I think the Liberals will be going hard after the seat.

Voted against this lady in 2015! Byeeeee

 

[Vibranium]

Dianne Watts, a CPCer from BC, is resigning her seat to run for the BC Liberal leadership. In the iPolitics story (which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall) they point out that Scheer's team wasn't prepared for it at all, since they just made her part of his shadow cabinet.

Watts won her riding in part because of her personal popularity (she was a former mayor of Surrey), and in part because she spent more than double what her opponents did. She only won by 3 points, though, so I think the Liberals will be going hard after the seat.

Watts is pretty popular with the BC Liberal party faithful too. I am not going to pretend to know how things will result but I could potentially see her as the next premier. I really hope I am wrong (I have been many times in my life).

We'll see how the race for her old seat goes, too. Hope for the best, expect the same.

 

[Tiktaalik]

White Rock has been such as solid Conservative seat that the Liberals have never really put much effort into winning it before and their candidates have not been that spectacular. It'd be interesting if in the byelection for the vacated seat, given the surprising closeness of the last election, they run a "star" candidate or someone with at least a bit more notability.

 

[gabbo]

Here's an interesting analysis on the complaints about the small tax proposals: With proposed Liberal reforms impacting less than 10% of small businesses, this tax revolt will fail

Scheer to paint Ivison Liberal plant at NP?