Justin Trudeau = Harper with a smile

1277 posts / 0 new
Last post
nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

As said elsewhere, under the Chretien/Martin Liberals there were massive cuts in transfer payments to the provinces as well as ending of social transfers in which money earmarked for social programs/welfare were wrapped into one transfer which than provided the provinces the flexibility to gut welfare/social programs. That was healthcare, higher education and welfare.

I remember those times. Still waiting for that national childcare program promised.

The reduction in transfers were not "massive" they were moderate. There was a 13% reduction from 1995 to 1997. But transfers were back to 1995 levels by 1999 (in terms of real dollars, they were higher than 1995 levels by 2001.)

I didn't agree with the Paul Martin cuts. But let's dispense with the hyperbole. The real deep and reckless spending cuts are happening now under Harper (which is on top of what Martin already cut.) 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

Naked Ape wrote:

Trudeau didn't vote to lock up every other pot smoker besides himself. Let's not be ridiculous here. The 2009 bill C-15 put mandatory minimum sentences on drug dealers, not pot smokers.

Yes, but unless Trudeau was taking extra care to ensure the pot he was smoking was homegrown, from seeds that were obtained from an entirely commercialized genealogy, he's still a blatant hypocrite. He's essentially saying that it's okay for him to smoke weed, but if you get caught selling it to him or his friends, he wants you locked up.

And, whipped vote? Yeah, whatever. If Harper had whipped the same-sex marriage vote to in order to kill same-sex marriage, how forgiving would we be of a gay Conservative who later bragged about being gay, on the grounds that he only voted against SSM because the vote was whipped?

Actually, Trudeau is dealing with the issue now with legalization. Decriminalization (which the NDP supports) is hypocritical because it locks up drug dealers while forcing users to buy from drug dealers.

The politics surrounded 2009 C-15, which was gutted by the Liberal senate, are irrelevant — except to partisans trying to score points (which they are failing at.)

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

SD:

Thanks. Backs up what I wrote; more info on this available at the CCPA website.

Naked Ape, this is the same argument that is used by Obama. Why do you think the Occupy move arose, and why they defined the 1%? The fact of the matter is that when it comes to bottom line quality of life improvement under either of the old-line parties, tey have both performed miserably. Talk is cheap. The prolem is, oridnary Canadians suffer while the Libs continue to try and duype them. Its shmeful, NakedApe, shamful.

Yes, Canada ranks #23 of 31 OECD countries in terms of social spending. But I never hear Mulcair talk about that. Northern European countries have low rates of inequality (Gini Index,) highest levels of social spending, higher levels of taxation, lowest levels of debt and much stronger economies. Why isn't the NDP talking about how centrist economics work wonders in northern Europe, as well as in Canada back in the post-war era?

The NDP need to frame every policy they have with economic performance: investing in people creates better job and business opportunities. So does investing in physical infrastructure. A pharmacare program can save Canadians billions a year in drug costs as well as health care costs. By implementing European open-access regulations on broadband, Canadians will see much lower internet, cellphone and HDTV bills. This will also foster a modern digital economy. Etc. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NakedApe, "I didn't agree with the Paul Martin cuts. But let's dispense with the hyperbole. The real deep and reckless spending cuts are happening now under Harper (which is on top of what Martin already cut.)"

Seriously, cutting social spending by over 40%, to 1950 levels, and then bragging about, when freezing spending at 194 levels for two years would have eliminated the deficit ISN"T RECKLESS? REALLY? No, seriously, REALLLY? Hyperbole huh, did you talk to the people whose lives were unpended by this?

What you are trying to do is expunge the Lib record in the hope that you can dupe people into voting for Le Dauphin and the Libs one  more time. Stop trying to pretend you are interested in factually based conversation. You aren't, you aren't fooling people like you think you are, and your not smarter then us. Figure it out.

I am for discussion, but this is simply ridiculous.

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

The Liberals brought in the Canada Health Transfer, negotiated with the provinces, which guaranteed a 6%/yr increase for 10 years. Harper has cut that transfer in half, unilaterally without consulting the provinces. The provinces did much better under the Liberals than the Conservatives, that's for sure.  

Has Trudeau promised to reverse this, and return the funding to 6%?  Or is he simply "Harper with a smile"?

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

NakedApe, "I didn't agree with the Paul Martin cuts. But let's dispense with the hyperbole. The real deep and reckless spending cuts are happening now under Harper (which is on top of what Martin already cut.)"

Seriously, cutting social spending by over 40%, to 1950 levels, and then bragging about, when freezing spending at 194 levels for two years would have eliminated the deficit ISN"T RECKLESS? REALLY? No, seriously, REALLLY? Hyperbole huh, did you talk to the people whose lives were unpended by this?

What you are trying to do is expunge the Lib record in the hope that you can dupe people into voting for Le Dauphin and the Libs one  more time. Stop trying to pretend you are interested in factually based conversation. You aren't, you aren't fooling people like you think you are, and your not smarter then us. Figure it out.

I am for discussion, but this is simply ridiculous.

You're hyper-partisan nonsense is ridiculous. Ask average Canadians if they think Paul Martin's cuts were reckless and massive. They'll think you're an extremist. I am most certainly not trying to convert any NDP party faithful into voting Liberal. I'm not a Liberal myself and find partisan politics disgusting. I provided the facts behind the Paul Martin cuts. You have the vested interest here, not me.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

The Liberals brought in the Canada Health Transfer, negotiated with the provinces, which guaranteed a 6%/yr increase for 10 years. Harper has cut that transfer in half, unilaterally without consulting the provinces. The provinces did much better under the Liberals than the Conservatives, that's for sure.  

Has Trudeau promised to reverse this, and return the funding to 6%?  Or is he simply "Harper with a smile"?

Trudeau hasn't unveiled his full platform yet. What does Mulcair promise to do? 

BTW, Trudeau probably will end up with a right-of-center platform. (He has to split the right-wing vote or Harper wins a majority.) But that is not a right-wing platform. No doubt NDP partisans can't tell the difference. But most Canadians will see the difference. 

And just because I'm debunking partisan tripe doesn't make me a Liberal. I expose Liberal partiasan nonsense in the social media as well. I'm hoping in 2015 we'll have a rational debate on the issue and people will just ignore the hysterical partisan attacks. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

nakedApe42 wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

NakedApe, "I didn't agree with the Paul Martin cuts. But let's dispense with the hyperbole. The real deep and reckless spending cuts are happening now under Harper (which is on top of what Martin already cut.)"

Seriously, cutting social spending by over 40%, to 1950 levels, and then bragging about, when freezing spending at 194 levels for two years would have eliminated the deficit ISN"T RECKLESS? REALLY? No, seriously, REALLLY? Hyperbole huh, did you talk to the people whose lives were unpended by this?

What you are trying to do is expunge the Lib record in the hope that you can dupe people into voting for Le Dauphin and the Libs one  more time. Stop trying to pretend you are interested in factually based conversation. You aren't, you aren't fooling people like you think you are, and your not smarter then us. Figure it out.

I am for discussion, but this is simply ridiculous.

You're hyper-partisan nonsense is ridiculous. Ask average Canadians if they think Paul Martin's cuts were reckless and massive. They'll think you're an extremist. I am most certainly not trying to convert any NDP party faithful into voting Liberal. I'm not a Liberal myself and find partisan politics disgusting. I provided the facts behind the Paul Martin cuts. You have the vested interest here, not me.

Let's get one thing staight here you self-satisfied, narcisstic blowhard, I don't like you. And to quote Shoeless Joe Jackson from Field of Dream, "stick it in your ear".

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

The Liberals brought in the Canada Health Transfer, negotiated with the provinces, which guaranteed a 6%/yr increase for 10 years. Harper has cut that transfer in half, unilaterally without consulting the provinces. The provinces did much better under the Liberals than the Conservatives, that's for sure.  

Has Trudeau promised to reverse this, and return the funding to 6%?  Or is he simply "Harper with a smile"?

Trudeau hasn't unveiled his full platform yet. What does Mulcair promise to do?

Granted, no party has yet released their platform for the next election, but it's a safe bet that the NDP would better fund health care than would either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:
Trudeau hasn't unveiled his full platform yet. What does Mulcair promise to do?

As I mentioned, no one has released an election platform yet.  But, they have had conventions and developed policy from passed resolutions, and from this people can get a good idea of the positions of the parties.  Presumably the Liberals have released a policy book, though I've been unable to find it.  Do you have a link to the Liberal's policy book?  I found the NDP policy book.

Regarding Liberal policy on healthcare, I did find this promo, and I found this from their convention:  Liberal Biennial Convention Reports on Health (it's rather bizarre and not particularly inspiring).  The NDP's policy book is here, and certainly I found the health policies there more to my liking than the Liberal Biennial Convention Reports on Health.

janfromthebruce

From one partisan to another - NakedApe, Trudeau hasn't revealed any policy or much of anything except about pot which showed he doesn't mind breaking laws that suit him and voting in contradiction to his actions.

Trudeau hasn't done much of anything. His time in the house (when he shows up) hasn't shown he took any initiatives on any front and in particular economic.

The Liberals don't have a balanced approach unless one accepts that pro corporations is balanced. Linda McQuaig will make quick work of Trudeau and spin circles around any economic spin he will try although after viewing his few performances in the house, it won't be hard.

I have to say that I find this whole discussion funny - liberals balanced and not partisan, ndp partisan and poor economic managers. And yet, stats canada suggests otherwise in showing that the best govts to manage economics have been NDP, Con and finally Liberal. Nice try though.

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

BTW, Trudeau probably will end up with a right-of-center platform. (He has to split the right-wing vote or Harper wins a majority.) But that is not a right-wing platform. No doubt NDP partisans can't tell the difference. But most Canadians will see the difference. 

I'm an NDP member, and I can't tell the difference between "right-of-center [sic]" and "right-wing".  Both lead to a growing gap between the rich and poor with corporations growing stronger while workers and unions get weaker.  So, neither Liberals nor Conservatives are my choice.

nakedApe42 wrote:

And just because I'm debunking partisan tripe doesn't make me a Liberal. I expose Liberal partiasan nonsense in the social media as well. I'm hoping in 2015 we'll have a rational debate on the issue and people will just ignore the hysterical partisan attacks. 

Did you note my post where I debunked some Liberal partisan tripe?

Anyway, I don't care for tripe (I'm vegetarian).  But if you can point out the link to the Liberal policy book (since I can't find it), then we could compare it to the NDP policy book and have an actual discussion about issues (see post 560).

wage zombie

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Makes sense. That strategy worked for Andre Boisclair in Quebec in 2007 and again for Mario Dumont the following year, Sharon Carstairs in Manitoba in 1990, Dwain Lingenfelter in Saskatchewan in 2011, and Stephane Dion federally in 2008 and Michael Ignatieff in 2011. Someone should tell him that even then, it's not unheard of for the Official Opposition to be knocked out of second place.

Seriously, what will it take to get through to this man?

What it will take is the NDP grassroots needs to step up and start selling the bolder policies that we want to see him run on.

Mulcair doesn't need to be chastised, he needs to be encouraged.  I'm not saying it's easy.  But I don't think it's a case of convincing Mulcair that being safe and cautious is a bad strategy-- it's more a case of convincing him that pushing for real cannabis law reform isn't risky or careless.

wage zombie

Unionist wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Unionist, that's deflection and you know it. The issue IS the Libs PROMISED national child care twice, and didn't deliver when they had NO reaso, NOT TO.

Well, I think the Chrétien-Martin governments were anti-worker neoliberal gangs, myself. But national child care is a really poor example of their promise-breaking. Perhaps you'll recall this:

[url=http://childcarecanada.org/documents/child-care-news/05/11/dryden-achiev... achieves 10 child care agreements[/url]

That was November 25, 2005. Perhaps you'll recall what happened on November 28, 2005? No?

November 17th the NDP gave the Liberals an opportunity to pass their legislation before having an election.  The Liberals could have passed that child care legislation and then run on it.  Instead they made the political calculation that it would be better to not pass the legislation and then be able to point the finger at the NDP for their lack of accomplishments over 13 years.

Quote:

You can find better examples of Liberal treachery. If this is your poster child to defeat Justin Trudeau - or his flip-flop on marijuana legalization - prepare for more years of opposition.

Meanwhile, you have an NDP government in Manitoba. Show us what you can do. In Québec, we frankly don't give a shit who is in power in Ottawa, as long as it's not the Harpocons. We elected 58 NDPers to try to get rid of him. Think you can help us with that, instead of telling tired old stories about the Red Book? Please?

This I agree with.  The NDP will not win be highlighting Liberal treachery.  And you are right.  The Quebec govt was able to implement child care provincially.  Since multiple provincial NDP couldn't do this, it's not really an issue that the NDP should be smug about.

If child care is an important issue then we should be proposing and selling good solutions to it, not foussing on blame for the current situation.

The issue if that the Liberals keep bringing up that we have the NDP to thank for Harper being in power.  This despite Iggy backing out of the coalition.  Dippers don't know how to respond to this.  If you argue against claims that are factually incorrect, you find yourself playing a blame game about something that happened 8 years ago.  If you don't respond to the claims, then it is viewed as a tacit acceptance of the inaccuracies being peddled.  There is no way to respond effectively to this Liberal line when it comes up.

IMO the way to negate this is to run on an inspiring enough platform, and then any Liberal claims about 2005 will seem weak in comparison (ie. no response necessary).  Of course then we're back to the problem that the NDP has not been able to articulate and sell a bold vision.

On babble we can rebut.  But there's no effective rebuttal to 2005, even to factually inaccurate claims.

In 2015 the Liberals will be making a lot of promises.  Neither of us trust Liberal promises.  But, there is a worry that lots of people will be dazzled by the Liberal promises.  So I can understand why Dippers feel the need to bring up the record of broken promises.  Ultimately though this is just a side issue.  The NDP will win or lose based on what we can offer.

janfromthebruce

WZ, it's both actually. The beauty of 2011 election is that Liberals were hard pressed to defend most of their platform because they just did cut and past from previous promises that they didn't do when in govt.

The public lost confidence in them and they laughed - sure sure.

And Layton NDP ran a great campaign on positions and policies that they actually supported by what they said and did. How they vote in the past is important. And showing up matters.

It's not like a blank slate that gets wiped clean.

Unionist

That is really - really - not what happened in the 2011 election. Not even a little bit. Ignore the true lessons of 2011 at your peril.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:
Trudeau hasn't unveiled his full platform yet. What does Mulcair promise to do?

As I mentioned, no one has released an election platform yet.  But, they have had conventions and developed policy from passed resolutions, and from this people can get a good idea of the positions of the parties.  Presumably the Liberals have released a policy book, though I've been unable to find it.  Do you have a link to the Liberal's policy book?  I found the NDP policy book.

Regarding Liberal policy on healthcare, I did find this promo, and I found this from their convention:  Liberal Biennial Convention Reports on Health (it's rather bizarre and not particularly inspiring).  The NDP's policy book is here, and certainly I found the health policies there more to my liking than the Liberal Biennial Convention Reports on Health.

The Liberal party likely doesn't have a policy book. They believe in taking the "evidence based" approach to policy. (No doubt over the past 20 years they have mistaken free-market ideology for evidence-based policy. Hopefully they will abandon that folly sometime soon.)

Trudeau has promised to "listen to Canadians" before developing his platform. He also takes input from resolutions at party conventions, like ranked ballot electoral reform and legalizing marijuana. The current policy focus is on government openness and accountability

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

" They believe in taking the "evidence based" approach to policy." Really? Read this; http://rabble.ca/news/paul-martin-he-has-record.

mark_alfred

nakedApe42, policies are different from a specific platform.  Policies, organized from the passed resolutions at convention, are the general blueprint out of which a specific platform is later built. I would have thought that they'd organize the resolutions that passed from their convention into a policy book.  Otherwise how does the membership and public at large know whether they're properly following what was decided at the convention? 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

From one partisan to another - NakedApe, Trudeau hasn't revealed any policy or much of anything except about pot which showed he doesn't mind breaking laws that suit him and voting in contradiction to his actions.

The NDP got played attacking Trudeau for "breaking the law." That makes them come across as anti-legalization. Which is exactly what Trudeau wanted.

janfromthebruce wrote:

Trudeau hasn't done much of anything. His time in the house (when he shows up) hasn't shown he took any initiatives on any front and in particular economic.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Trudeau has promised to boost post-secondary education and worker trainging to 70% (from 50%) to make more Canadians middle-income earners ("middle class".) He has been pushing his Democratic Reform platform, which includes ranked ballot electoral reform. He has promised carbon pricing and action on the environment. He also wants MP expenses posted online: he introduced 4 expense-transparency motions in the House of Commons and the NDP voted against every one

janfromthebruce wrote:

Linda McQuaig will make quick work of Trudeau and spin circles around any economic spin he will try although after viewing his few performances in the house, it won't be hard.

I'm a big fan of Linda McQuaig and love how she has exposed the corrupt free-market agenda over past 30 years. I'm hoping she will win the nomination and get elected. Canada definitely needs more voices from the center-left on economic issues.

(McQuaig is basically a left-leaning centrist Keynesian. In the post-war era, NDP, Liberals and PCs were all Keynesians. The past 30-year "age of greed" was founded on a free-market counter-revolution to the Keynesian post-war revolution that created modern living standards. It has produced all the economy problems we face today: towering levels of inequality and debt; hollowing out of the middle class; the global economic meltdown we have yet to recover from, etc.) 

 

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

I have to say that I find this whole discussion funny - liberals balanced and not partisan, ndp partisan and poor economic managers. And yet, stats canada suggests otherwise in showing that the best govts to manage economics have been NDP, Con and finally Liberal. Nice try though.

The NDP have the best fiscal record. But that doesn't mean they are good economic managers.

The problem with the NDP is that they come up with populist and amateurish policy, like tax breaks for job creation. They need to come up with better policy from respected Keynesian economists like Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Reich.

They also need to weave an economic narrative that shows Canadians why they are the best choice on the economy.

Ronald Reagan is the perfect example. Jimmy Carter tried to portray him as a joke proffering "voodoo economics." No doubt Carter was right. But Reagan took the bull by the horns, put his sales pitch to the American people and ushered in a 30-year free-market revolution.

The NDP should stand for a return to successful Keynesian mixed-market economics that produced a golden age in the post-war era (and also work wonders in northern Europe today.)

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

BTW, Trudeau probably will end up with a right-of-center platform. (He has to split the right-wing vote or Harper wins a majority.) But that is not a right-wing platform. No doubt NDP partisans can't tell the difference. But most Canadians will see the difference. 

I'm an NDP member, and I can't tell the difference between "right-of-center [sic]" and "right-wing".  Both lead to a growing gap between the rich and poor with corporations growing stronger while workers and unions get weaker.  So, neither Liberals nor Conservatives are my choice.

The left/right economic political scale is Communism/Libertarianism (100% government control of the economy/no government involvement in the economy.) In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system. Free market ideologues are at the far right of the scale. Moderate conservativism is right-of-center. 

In the post-war era, all major parties were centrist Keynesian: NDP, Liberal, PC, Democrat, Republican (whether left-leaning or right-leaning.) 

Over the past 20 years the Liberals have moved significantly to the right which makes them neo-con-light moderate conservatives (or Red Tories.)

With a united Conservative party — under our ridiculous voting system, First-Past-the-Post — the Liberals have to win over moderate conservatives or else we have perpetual Con fake majorities.

So in order to have a more liberal Liberal party and more social democratic NDP, we need voting reform to stop the distorted election results. PR would be ideal. But unless the NDP forms the next government PR is off the table. Ranked ballot voting will also put an end to the perverse election results (as a stopgap measure.) 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

And Layton NDP ran a great campaign on positions and policies that they actually supported by what they said and did. How they vote in the past is important. And showing up matters.

Actually democracy is founded on compromise and working with other parties to pass legislation. That means putting aside one's ideology from time-to-time to get things done.

Take, for example, when Jack Layton "flip flopped" on corporate taxes while trying to make a deal with Harper on the 2011 budget. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

" In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system. Free market ideologues are at the far right of the scale. Moderate conservativism is right-of-center.

Oh come on; that's Overton Widow stuff in reverse. The next thing you'll tell us is the NDP believes in Nationalization of the means of Production, and Keynes had  secret membeship in the LPC. Ridiculous.

mark_alfred

Okay, I found the results of their convention.  Here are the Liberal resolutions from their convention that passed.  The fact that they haven't organized it into a policy book strikes me as really disorganized.  Frustratingly scattered.  It's bit annoying having to go to the site to open the individual resolutions to find out their positions on stuff -- though I'm doing just that and will try to post the result later in the Liberal thread.

Anyway, here's the site with all the resolutions, and here is the list of those that passed.

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

 PR would be ideal. But unless the NDP forms the next government PR is off the table.

Agreed.  The NDP advocate the best policy for electoral reform.  Vote for the best, I always say.

Aristotleded24

wage zombie wrote:
The NDP will not win be highlighting Liberal treachery.  And you are right.  The Quebec govt was able to implement child care provincially.  Since multiple provincial NDP couldn't do this, it's not really an issue that the NDP should be smug about.

If child care is an important issue then we should be proposing and selling good solutions to it, not foussing on blame for the current situation.

The issue if that the Liberals keep bringing up that we have the NDP to thank for Harper being in power.  This despite Iggy backing out of the coalition.  Dippers don't know how to respond to this.  If you argue against claims that are factually incorrect, you find yourself playing a blame game about something that happened 8 years ago.  If you don't respond to the claims, then it is viewed as a tacit acceptance of the inaccuracies being peddled.  There is no way to respond effectively to this Liberal line when it comes up.

IMO the way to negate this is to run on an inspiring enough platform, and then any Liberal claims about 2005 will seem weak in comparison (ie. no response necessary).  Of course then we're back to the problem that the NDP has not been able to articulate and sell a bold vision.

On babble we can rebut.  But there's no effective rebuttal to 2005, even to factually inaccurate claims.

In 2015 the Liberals will be making a lot of promises.  Neither of us trust Liberal promises.  But, there is a worry that lots of people will be dazzled by the Liberal promises.  So I can understand why Dippers feel the need to bring up the record of broken promises.  Ultimately though this is just a side issue.  The NDP will win or lose based on what we can offer.

Exactly. Mulcair seems to be relying on the strategy of promising the same thing as the Liberals did, but don't worry becuase the NDP, unlike the Liberals, actually means to do all that stuff for real. Nobody trusts that politicians actually mean what they say, and if that's the case, why not go for the people who have governed (the Liberals) over people who haven't (the NDP)?

I remember in the 2011 debate when Jack responded to a part of the Liberal platform by saying that the Liberals always break their promises. That was an eye-rollingly bad, "so what" kind of response. Blind luck saved the NDP when Ignatieff admitted it, but that part was won by Ignatieff's blunder, and not by Jack's brilliance.

mark_alfred

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Exactly. Mulcair seems to be relying on the strategy of promising the same thing as the Liberals did, but don't worry becuase the NDP, unlike the Liberals, actually means to do all that stuff for real.

I'm not so sure they are promising the same things.  I'm currently investigating that.  As nakedApe42 stated, they advocate different reforms of the electoral system, and I'm sure there's other differences as well.

Lens Solution

Justin Trudeau is not the academic or the intellectual that his father was, that much is obvious.  But he does seem to have a better understanding than Ignatieff & Dion of how to resonate with the public.  He is not stupid when it comes to the populist part of politics.  That is something that out of touch professors like Dion and elitist snobs like Ignatieff couldn't do.  Trudeau is trying to fill the vaccuum left by the loss of Jack Layton.

Look at this new poll today.  Mulcair has to realize that Trudeau knows how to use issues like this to upstage the NDP and sneak votes away if he's not careful:

 

Trudeau Liberals surge back into healthy lead in polls after leader’s pot admission

 

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau appears more likely to become prime minister after admitting to smoking marijuana while being a Member of Parliament, a new poll suggests, as more Canadians say they are supportive of relaxing drug laws.

 

The Liberals have surged to 38% support from voters in the latest Forum Poll for the National Post, while the Conservatives have slipped to 29% and the NDP trail at 22%. The poll was conducted one day after Trudeau’s pot admission shook up Canada’s sleepy summer recess.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/26/trudeau-liberals-surge-back-into...

janfromthebruce

When the House resumes do you think Trudeau is going to show up and have better attendance record or will he do some more speaking engagements?

Anyway, here's the piece on the record of fiscal record of the NDP. Fiscal Record of Canadian Political Parties

The Progressive Economics Forum

Too bad the libs were last of the 3 parties - so much for good financial managers.

And Trudeau is no Jack Layton. Layton actually had a list of accomplishments before he was elected to the House of Commons - eg. starting the white ribbon campaign which is now international.

I'm sure that the abolish the senate is picking up steam with the recent revalations with both Duffy (con) and Harb (lib).

mark_alfred

In the interest in discussing actual issues and policy, I searched and found both the NDP policy book and the Liberal's recent approved policy resolutions (see list).  I put together all the passed policy resolutions of the Liberals into one document so that I could search it easier to see exactly what they cover and what they don't (see post 575 for links to the original documents).  Seems I can't attach documents to Babble posts, so I put it on my own webserver.  The document is a LibreOffice document (similar to OpenOffice.org).  It's located here if you're interested in looking at it (it's called LibPolicyResolutions.odt).  If there's a problem downloading it, let me know.  The NDP policy book is located here.

Anyway, I noticed some interesting differences between the policy book of the NDP and the policy resolutions of the Liberals.  One difference I noticed is that poverty within the Liberal document is only mentioned when it's associated with a specific demographic (IE, seniors) but there's no entry that's based solely on alleviating poverty.  This is especially curious given that there were a couple of resolutions on poverty that received a lot of votes (one over a hundred) but didn't get approved, whereas some of the other resolutions that did get approved had less votes than these poverty resolutions.  Perhaps it was due to how they were categorized.  Still, the absence is curious.  By contrast the NDP policy book directly deals with poverty:  "Increasing the Canada Social Transfer to the provinces and territories to enhance welfare programs."

Another interesting difference is the Liberal policy resolutions do not include any mention of carbon pricing.  They touch on the environment by discussing investing in renewables and of doing studies.  By contrast, the NDP policy document clearly states:  "New Democrats believe in: a Establishing binding targets and clear standards to cut greenhouse gas emissions. b Creating a revenue-generating carbon market to ensure industry reduces greenhouse gas emissions to targets set by government."

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Arthur Cramer wrote:

" In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system. Free market ideologues are at the far right of the scale. Moderate conservativism is right-of-center.

Oh come on; that's Overton Widow stuff in reverse. The next thing you'll tell us is the NDP believes in Nationalization of the means of Production, and Keynes had  secret membeship in the LPC. Ridiculous.

What are you going on about? I said the NDP are left-leaning centrists and that all parties were Keynesian in the post-war era...

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

 PR would be ideal. But unless the NDP forms the next government PR is off the table.

Agreed.  The NDP advocate the best policy for electoral reform.  Vote for the best, I always say.

What about a Plan B? The latest seat projections have the NDP falling back to third place from 103 seats to 44.

What if the Liberal party forms a minority government and needs NDP support for ranked ballot voting reform? Will the NDP kill the reform and condemn future generations to corrupt First-Past-the-Post and a Conservative natural governing party? With his eye on a 39% dictatorship in 2017, that's something Trudeau could probably live with...

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

When the House resumes do you think Trudeau is going to show up and have better attendance record or will he do some more speaking engagements?

Anyway, here's the piece on the record of fiscal record of the NDP. Fiscal Record of Canadian Political Parties

The Progressive Economics Forum

Too bad the libs were last of the 3 parties - so much for good financial managers.

That only includes 1980 until present. Anyone familiar with economics (like Linda McQuaig) would tell you that the debt explosion since the early 1980s was caused by anti-inflation monetary policy by the Bank of Canada. Very high interest rates in the early 1980s and early 1990s created massive recessions, ultra-high debt servicing costs and huge deficits.

In the post-war era, however, governments (including many Liberal ones) paid down debt: from 100% debt/GDP to 17% by 1973. It's now back up to 85%.

Trudeau Sr., BTW, left debt/GDP at the same level he started at. He was paying down debt until 1976, but then got hosed by external influences: stagflation and the Volcker Shock…  

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

And Trudeau is no Jack Layton.

Yes, Trudeau is certain to disappoint Canadians by not uniting the right behind a Harper majority… 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Anyway, I noticed some interesting differences between the policy book of the NDP and the policy resolutions of the Liberals.  One difference I noticed is that poverty within the Liberal document is only mentioned when it's associated with a specific demographic (IE, seniors) but there's no entry that's based solely on alleviating poverty.  This is especially curious given that there were a couple of resolutions on poverty that received a lot of votes (one over a hundred) but didn't get approved, whereas some of the other resolutions that did get approved had less votes than these poverty resolutions.  Perhaps it was due to how they were categorized.  Still, the absence is curious.  By contrast the NDP policy book directly deals with poverty:  "Increasing the Canada Social Transfer to the provinces and territories to enhance welfare programs."

If the NDP wants to get something done on poverty, they will need to help change the voting system. FPP relegates them to the sidelines. (Over their 75 year history they averaged 14% of the vote and 9% of the seats.) PR is probably nothing more than a pipedream at the present time. PV ranked ballot, on the other hand, will moderate polarizing election results and make the NDP a real player that can compete with the Liberals head on and form governments.   

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

Another interesting difference is the Liberal policy resolutions do not include any mention of carbon pricing.  They touch on the environment by discussing investing in renewables and of doing studies.  By contrast, the NDP policy document clearly states:  "New Democrats believe in: a Establishing binding targets and clear standards to cut greenhouse gas emissions. b Creating a revenue-generating carbon market to ensure industry reduces greenhouse gas emissions to targets set by government."

Trudeau has said he will make carbon pricing a part of his platform:

"Ours is a vision that knows economic prosperity and environmental health can – and must – go hand in hand in the 21st century. We will not ignore science, or shy away from tough, urgent issues like carbon pricing. Nor will we succumb to easy politics by demonizing one sector of the economy or region of the country."

 

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

 PR would be ideal. But unless the NDP forms the next government PR is off the table.

Agreed.  The NDP advocate the best policy for electoral reform.  Vote for the best, I always say.

What about a Plan B? The latest seat projections have the NDP falling back to third place from 103 seats to 44.

What if the Liberal party forms a minority government and needs NDP support for ranked ballot voting reform? Will the NDP kill the reform and condemn future generations to corrupt First-Past-the-Post and a Conservative natural governing party? With his eye on a 39% dictatorship in 2017, that's something Trudeau could probably live with...

Polls are for dogs.  NDP is best.  I have no second choice.  Proportional representation is the way to go. 

However, if you feel preferential balloting is better than proportional representation, then vote Liberal.  I don't agree, but hey, it's a free country.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

Lens Solution wrote:

Look at this new poll today.  Mulcair has to realize that Trudeau knows how to use issues like this to upstage the NDP and sneak votes away if he's not careful:

Trudeau Liberals surge back into healthy lead in polls after leader’s pot admission

Yes the NDP are making big mistakes by reacting negatively to everything Trudeau does. The NDP had the moral high ground on cannabis, but came across as anti-marijuana by attacking Trudeau on legalization and his confession of smoking weed while an MP.

They need to be less  partisan and more nimble on political strategy. (Rabid hyper-partisanship works for Harper because he leads a united Conservative party which benefits from polarizing politics under corrupt First-Past-the-Post voting.)

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Another interesting difference is the Liberal policy resolutions do not include any mention of carbon pricing.  They touch on the environment by discussing investing in renewables and of doing studies.  By contrast, the NDP policy document clearly states:  "New Democrats believe in: a Establishing binding targets and clear standards to cut greenhouse gas emissions. b Creating a revenue-generating carbon market to ensure industry reduces greenhouse gas emissions to targets set by government."

Trudeau has said he will make carbon pricing a part of his platform:

"Ours is a vision that knows economic prosperity and environmental health can – and must – go hand in hand in the 21st century. We will not ignore science, or shy away from tough, urgent issues like carbon pricing. Nor will we succumb to easy politics by demonizing one sector of the economy or region of the country."

 

The fact that carbon pricing is not in the policy resolutions is a big red flag.  It's not "his platform" to make, is it?  It'll be the Liberal Party's platform to make, from the policy resolutions as passed by the Liberal membership delegates.  And given that carbon pricing is lacking from those policy resolutions, the Liberal Party, like the Conservative Party, should not be supported.

janfromthebruce

But Trudeau is king of twitter verse and for rainbows and happy faces and fluff. NA is a one person Trudeau-o fan club. Note today that Manitoba is for abolishing the House of Patronage whether Liberal or Conservative. Good. 100 billion a year good be used for social good rather than propping up a relic from the past for elitism and old timer politics.

knownothing knownothing's picture
janfromthebruce

Montreal businessman Stephen Bronfman will lead those fundraising efforts for the Liberal Party, CBC News has learned, and he will lay out his ideas at the caucus meeting on Wednesday.

The Bronfman name is one of the biggest in Canadian business — Stephen Bronfman's grandfather built the Seagram liquor empire, making the family billionaires.

Bronfman runs the private investment firm Claridge Inc., and is a longtime family friend of Trudeau. Bronfman was one of the key players in Trudeau's leadership campaign, helping to bring in more than $2 million, and now he has signed on to help the whole party.

Oh Bronfman, the family the Lib govt of the day let them take billions out of Canada - robber barons. Yeah, the Trudeau Liberals are so progressive and for the middle class. Here we go again, fake left and go right.

So let's walk down memory lane of the wonderful Chretien era of austerity for everyone else except the rich, and in particular the superrich (1 percenters).

And now Bronfman Jr. is Trudeau Jr.'s party bagman. Let's keep it all in the family why don't we. Back to the future

Closing the Loopholes

No money for social programs, but billions go untaxed

 

Chasing the Bronfman billions

Desautels was referring to events that took place in 1991 when a law firm, acting on behalf of a family trust controlled by the powerful Bronfman family, asked Revenue Canada for an advance tax ruling to confirm that public company shares could leave Canada tax-free. The purpose of the transaction, according to Revenue Canada, was to allow the Bronfmans to avoid paying tax under the twenty-one year rule accorded to family trusts. Under the family trust provisions established by the Liberals in 1974, Canada's wealthiest families could transfer assets to their children with no tax paid on those assets for twenty-one years. However, funds transferred out of the country were deemed to have been sold and taxes had to be paid on the capital gains.

However, with the application to move the trust funds out of the country, it wasn't enough that the Bronfmans' trust didn't have to pay taxes for twenty one years. They wanted to move assets worth a whopping $2.2 billion out of Canada and pay no taxesCever.

Revenue Canada initially ruled against the request. But the Department of FinanceCthe same department now telling Canadians there is no money Cforced Revenue Canada to reverse its decision.

Liberals defend tax avoidance

When these events were eventually made public this year, there was a flurry of press coverage, but the connection between the foregone taxes, the deficit and government cutbacks was seldom raised in the mainstream media. Several parliamentary committees examined the auditor's report but, in the end, the Chretien government stood behind the ruling.

Today, the furor over the uncollected tax has quietly disappeared from the public eye. However, the Liberal government may not be able to hide this scandal so easily. There are too many unanswered questions and too many loose ends for the issue to go away. How many other trusts and individuals have taken advantage of this loophole in the Income Tax act? How much revenue has Canada lost? Why are Jean Chretien and Paul Martin trying to cover up the family trust ruling, a ruling made by the Mulroney Conservatives?

In an attempt to force the government to answer some of these questions, CHOICES, a coalition for social justice, has launched an unprecedented court actionC"Project Loophole"Cto force the government to collect the estimated half a billion in taxes that should have been paid by the Bronfman family trust. Lawyers representing CHOICES will argue that the Income Tax Act was not properly enforced and that the money owing from the Bronfman trust should now be paid.

Whatever the outcome of the court case, the next time governments threaten to cut education, social services, health care, or workers' salaries because there isn't any money, Canadians will be able to stand up, wave the Auditor General's report, and remind Liberal and Tory politicians that there is lots of money if the government would just collect the taxes it is owed. 

CANADIAN PERSPECTIVES ' WINTER 1997

now there is more so link to get the full monty.

 

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

The fact that carbon pricing is not in the policy resolutions is a big red flag.  It's not "his platform" to make, is it?  It'll be the Liberal Party's platform to make, from the policy resolutions as passed by the Liberal membership delegates.  And given that carbon pricing is lacking from those policy resolutions, the Liberal Party, like the Conservative Party, should not be supported.

You forget to take into account earlier policy resolutions like those from 2009. They probably didn't vote on it in 2012 because the issue was already settled. The party has long supported carbon pricing. Dion put forward a carbon tax. Ignatieff, cap and trade. I hope Trudeau goes with a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It can be a tougher sell, but it's more effective and gets better grades from economists.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

What about a Plan B? The latest seat projections have the NDP falling back to third place from 103 seats to 44.

What if the Liberal party forms a minority government and needs NDP support for ranked ballot voting reform? Will the NDP kill the reform and condemn future generations to corrupt First-Past-the-Post and a Conservative natural governing party? With his eye on a 39% dictatorship in 2017, that's something Trudeau could probably live with...

Polls are for dogs.  NDP is best.  I have no second choice.  Proportional representation is the way to go. 

However, if you feel preferential balloting is better than proportional representation, then vote Liberal.  I don't agree, but hey, it's a free country.

I don't believe ranked ballot is better than PR. But I believe it's better than nothing.

No doubt, all-or-nothing types are used to getting nothing. I just hope they don't drag the rest of the country down with them.

Most Canadians want something done to fix our broken voting system. Most Canadians are also moderates who are willing to compromise.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NA:

You know full well Le Dauphin won't do anything without the premission of his Corporate masters. He will do NOTHING on Global Warming that is in any way meaningful.

Libearl/Tory, same old story.

nakedApe42 nakedApe42's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:

But Trudeau is king of twitter verse and for rainbows and happy faces and fluff. NA is a one person Trudeau-o fan club.

Partisan zealotry... 

janfromthebruce wrote:

Note today that Manitoba is for abolishing the House of Patronage whether Liberal or Conservative. Good. 100 billion a year good be used for social good rather than propping up a relic from the past for elitism and old timer politics.

That's 100 million. But yes I hope we are able to take advantage of the senate situation and get rid of it before the next election. The failed institution is a morally-bankrupt affront to democracy. 

janfromthebruce

I'm a proud partisan of the NDP.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Just posted this at Huff Post:

"

So, its ok for the Libs to have as their fund raising chief a multi billionaire who benefitted directly from Chretien/Martin's decison NOT to

go after that 700 million dollars that went to the US (they knew it was Brnfman's money), who benefitted from LPC Chretien/Martin tax policy

that benefitted him and his family, the Thompsons and all the other people of power and influence? Trudeau surrounds himself with Multi

Billionaires, Martinites, LPC insiders, and has as a his Chief of Staff the leading Keystone Pipeline lobbyist, and all you Libs insist

Trudeau represents change? Really? No seriously, really? You are all either being deliberately obtuse, or your narcisstic compartimentalization

allows you all to ignore this in your self rightous belief that Le Dauphin is Candas great progressive hope, the anti-Harper. Well

all I can say is anyone who voted NDP and now is going to vote for this PRETENDER to some legacy in the belief Le Dauphin is going to bring a

progressive nirvana is ether a fool or is delirious. There is no other explantion. Your deliberate and willful display of arrogant

self-rightousness and leeming like willingness to follow this demagogue cannot be explained any other way. Well good luck, and thanks for

screwing oridinary Canadians. You should ALL be proud of yourselves.

And this applies to anyone else here who argues simillary. If you believe that, Frankly, you are nuts!

mark_alfred

nakedApe42 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

nakedApe42 wrote:

What about a Plan B? The latest seat projections have the NDP falling back to third place from 103 seats to 44.

What if the Liberal party forms a minority government and needs NDP support for ranked ballot voting reform? Will the NDP kill the reform and condemn future generations to corrupt First-Past-the-Post and a Conservative natural governing party? With his eye on a 39% dictatorship in 2017, that's something Trudeau could probably live with...

Polls are for dogs.  NDP is best.  I have no second choice.  Proportional representation is the way to go. 

However, if you feel preferential balloting is better than proportional representation, then vote Liberal.  I don't agree, but hey, it's a free country.

I don't believe ranked ballot is better than PR. But I believe it's better than nothing.

No doubt, all-or-nothing types are used to getting nothing. I just hope they don't drag the rest of the country down with them.

Most Canadians want something done to fix our broken voting system. Most Canadians are also moderates who are willing to compromise.

If you don't believe a ranked ballot is better than PR, and do believe that PR is the best solution, then why vote for a party (Liberal) that historically has opposed electoral reform and only now is advocating something that's substandard?  Especially when the NDP, who does advocate for PR, is doing a great job in Official Opposition holding Harper's feet to the fire?  That's kind of self-defeating, don't you think?

Pages

Topic locked