[Nevyn]

D, on 12 August 2015 - 05:00 AM, said:

Trudeau really irked me in the debate. He had so much reluctance to engage on some issues just like Harper would. When the issue of updating our electoral process (to a system which better represents the total votes than FPTP) came up, both Harper and Trudeau's responses were basically along the lines of "Oh no, that would mean updating the constitution, how dare we consider touching that most sacred of documents" ... the same kind of rhetoric you see in the US over any issue pertaining to one of their almighty Amendments (gun ownership being the most obvious). Since when is our constitution some untouchable holy shrine that cannot be revised?

I think you actually may have misinterpreted a bit there.

Trudeau has actually promised to do away with FPTP. His promise is to form an all party committee to design the system that follows. His stated preferred choice is called 'preferential vote', which is not a big shock as it would likely favour the liberals. But to his credit he isn't promising that system, jsut that he would do away with FPTP.

And I don't think changing the electoral system does mean changing the constitution. The debate is over whether one party can do it unilaterally and whether they should have a referendum in support. And Harper's point is that multiple provinces have had referendums on new systems (usually a FPTP/PR hybrid), and they have never gotten much support.

He was more like that when it came to the Quebec secession question, and may have had a comment like that wrt the supreme court, I don't recall.

And FWIW the constitution is not sacred, it is just very hard to change. The first Trudeau barely got it done, killed his support in his own province to do it, and still had to give them a massive charter loophole. And the mess that created led to Meech Lake and Charlottetown, and you know how that went. So its not that it shouldn't be changed, but you should be wary of any politician who makes changing it sound like no biggie.

Quote

Same thing seems to apply to the Senate issue, C-51, environmental issues, etc... Trudeau always seemed to be saying he would oppose what Harper had done, in the exact same way Harper did it in the first place.

On C-51 that is fair comment. Trudeau made a disastrous error on C-51 and made it worse with his comments after he supported it.

I actually though he did ok in this debate at minimizing the damage, but its a pretty weak position. He had no balance of power, there was zero good reason for the liberals to support such a bill.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 12 August 2015 - 01:18 PM

[QuickTidal]

Indeed, what Nevyn said.

After discussing this with a politically-minded friend yesterday...I think we also need to realize that as much as Trudeau grew up with the same Environmental issues as us in the 90's, and we want this stalwart soldier for ALL our generations ideals (and to do away with the Traditionalist Tory ideals that are pretty backwards in this day and age), and that he'll spout everything in opposition to Harper...he's also a politician trying to get elected to run the entire country...as such he kind of has to tow the line with a lot of the topics so he's not shunned by an electorate who might want Tory ideals, but COULD side with Lib ones if he leans hard enough into a middle ground.

If that's what it takes to get elected and start enacting some of the stuff we WANT to see from him, I think I gotta be okay with that. Also he sassed Harper a whole slew of times in that debate and I grinned every time.

[Nevyn]

Trudeau's problem is that Canadian politics is becoming more like the US ... wedge politics. And as the party of the center the liberals often have to straddle the wedge, as they need voters on both sides of it.

The result being reactions like D'Rek s. He tries to take a measured stance but the people who like whats being done already get it from the Cons, and the ones who don't want to see complete, unambiguous rejection. Trudeau is going more to the left than his predecessors did, but only on select issues.

The other problem is one of attention span. The media and electorate tend to focus on a few key issues, so Trudeau wants all the attention on the ones he feels he is strongly positioned on.

Combining the two elements, if the election is about security or about the environment, every vote Trudeau picks up on one side of the aisle he loses one or two on the other. So not only does he try to position himself as moderate and inoffensive on those issues, but he also hardly focuses on them in debate, because that is not what he wants people thinking or talking about. He wants attention on the economy and taxes, because there is room to attack the conservatives there, but still distrust (in Ontario especially) of the NDP as financial stewards. And he wants attention on questions of national identity, because that's where many hate Harper and where he thinks they may not trust Mulcair.

[QuickTidal]

Well put. That's exactly how I see it.

[Nevyn]

Following the Star's live stream of Wright at the Duffy trial.

Pretty boringly predictable so far. He has avoided putting Harper in any deeper. But it sounds like the press will get some fun sidebars out of the emails Wright saved that are coming to light.

[LinearPhilosopher]

i thought duffy was ready to start twisting the knife further

[Nevyn]

The issue with Duffy is that he is viewed so much as a sketchy character himself, and has been so deceitful on his case, that just him making any accusation won't carry too much weight unless he has evidence to back it up.

Wright is of interest because this is his first time commenting on it. Also because the emails give a peek into the PMO. Don't know if it will be asked since not relevant to Duffy trial but I'd love to hear him testify under oath whether he was fired or resigned. Harper has been evasive on that topic.

For the people attacking Harper, they should worry less about tying him to the payback scheme, and just focus on "every Senator you appoint seems to end up in a massive scandal, what does that say about your judgement". Justin in particular should take that approach, since he is being attacked on his judgement.

PS> It is still prosecutors doing questions, but Duffy coming off terribly thus far. You argue you did nothing wrong and fight about paying back and then ask for an assurance the matter won't be referred to police? "Please don't tell the cops about this totally legal thing I did?"

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 12 August 2015 - 07:16 PM

[LinearPhilosopher]

So the latest with duffy is apparently the PMO's office sent emails stating they hoped deloitte wouldn't find anything suspicious.

So im curious as to whether that disgruntle conservative voter will have any election impact

[Nevyn]

Its funny, the approach Duffy's lawyer is taking in court is skirting the lines between trying to make the case and political revenge for Duffy for the perceived slights against him.

But the case has managed to put Novak in hot water and the PM on the defensive out on the campaign trail.

I don't think Duffy will affect the hard line conservative vote, but for any soft supporters still wavering this could be the last straw. For them it is still about finding a palatable alternative.

[Nevyn]

So far the Perrin testimony seems far more politically damaging than anything Wright said.

It is keeping the headlines front page, but as a lawyer more than a party hack, Perrin isn't pulling his punches on how things went down. He has outed the current chief-of-staff about knowing earlier, which pretty much contradicts Novak's statements. He has expressed an opinion that Harper knew about the scheme, and he has taken a massive dump on how the whole negotiation was handled.

[LinearPhilosopher]

http://www.thestar.c...l-suggests.html

Interesting. We're still 2 months away however

[QuickTidal]

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

http://www.thestar.c...l-suggests.html

Interesting. We're still 2 months away however

You know what? As much as I am a Liberal at heart...I'd be surprisingly okay with an NDP majority.

[D'rek]

Mulcair has been taking some more flak than usual recently (Trudeau pushing really hard about his promise to have a balanced budget, a couple recent articles about Mulcair being more right-wing than the rest of the party, etc), so those poll numbers will probably go back down a little.

I hope not too much, though. I would be more than happy with an NDP majority. Even if I don't like all their policies, their promise of going to proportional representation gives the vote some long-term benefit for future elections, too.

[Nevyn]

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

http://www.thestar.c...l-suggests.html

Interesting. We're still 2 months away however

On the same day the Globe ran a seat by seat projection that had the Tories most likely to win the most seats. They have the NDP polling higher too , though.

The star piece was based on 40% being a 'magic number', not a seat projection.

The NDP is polling REALLY high in Quebec, but since they have so many Quebec seats that may not help them really add much.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 28 August 2015 - 02:38 PM

[Mentalist]

High polls mean way less in a fptp system. Overall popularity won't necessarily translate into votes in all ridings.

I live in a GTA suburb, and we've got a Liberal slightly ahead of the Con, with NDP candidate being a reliable third (lots of "ethnic line" voting in immigrant-mostly riding). Last election con beat the Lib by about 600 votes, and my very pro-Lib friend, who knows my leanings towards NDP is urging me to vote "strategically" b/c otherwise NDP votes will dilute the Lib, and the Con will win again. yet I don't want my money to go to libs.
God, I hate FPTP.

[LinearPhilosopher]

Nevyn, on 28 August 2015 - 02:38 PM, said:

LinearPhilosopher, on 28 August 2015 - 02:01 PM, said:

http://www.thestar.c...l-suggests.html

Interesting. We're still 2 months away however

On the same day the Globe ran a seat by seat projection that had the Tories most likely to win the most seats. They have the NDP polling higher too , though.

The star piece was based on 40% being a 'magic number', not a seat projection.

The NDP is polling REALLY high in Quebec, but since they have so many Quebec seats that may not help them really add much.

http://www.theglobea...rticle25377958/

is this the one? It really puts into perspective how fptp skew things.

This post has been edited by LinearPhilosopher: 28 August 2015 - 04:27 PM

[Nevyn]

Globe and Mail debate on the economy was on tonight, and it was a mess.

Fact checker in chief Elizabeth May was excluded.

And thanks to the format, everyone tried to "run out the clock" on the free for all exchanges, forcing others to interrupt and with a lot of talking over one another.

Thomas Mulcair decided it was time to stop being nice and it was ok to seem a bit angry. But he also did little to defend his own plans or hurt those of others. Just a few zingers and a lot of defence.

Harper did was Harper does, he worked off his own set of 'facts', stuck to the script, and rode things out.

In terms of content, Trudeau had the most to say and the most nuanced answers. But his delivery remained awful. He talked too fast and stumbled on both words and facts, which may have undermined his message.

And all of them, even those with good points, sounded endlessly repetitive by the end of the night.

Worse, the design of the debate was meant to allow for cross examination, but neither the debaters nor the moderator called anyone out on the biggest lies in their platforms.

Harper was holier than thou about not running deficits, and no one thought to mention that the Conservatives got us in to deficit BEFORE the financial crisis?
Harper talked about all the tax benefits he was providing, and it was not worth mentioning that most of the tax revenue lost by those measures went to wealthy and financially secure Canadians?
Mulcair kept on talking about his spending plans and insisting on a balanced budget, and no one thought to ask him what he would sacrifice if the economy underperformed expectations ... balance or his new spending?
No one thought to ask Trudeau if his plan for the economy is 3 years of infrastructure investment, what happens to jobs in year 4? Trickle down only? How do you sustain any growth you generate?


All in all pretty disappointing. For a debate to be so combative, and still have no one nailed down on anything just feels like a massive waste of time. They could honestly have used May there as a defacto second moderator.

[Abyss]

It's still too soon for anyone but the in power party to truly take a position and stand by it. Wait another two weeks and things will get firmer. Ish. Almost. Kinda.

[LinearPhilosopher]

http://www.cpac.ca/e...sodes/90005996/
Link to the debate. I'm glad im bilingual as i get to cringe at how bad some of the french is.

[LinearPhilosopher]

and harper is gone! Good fucking riddance.