The federal election, started June 21st, 2015

431 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/24/ndp-urges-parents-who-don-t-need...

OTTAWA — The federal NDP is encouraging parents who don't need the newly enhanced universal child care benefit to donate the money to the party.

The party's latest fundraising email blast urges supporters to follow the example of Ella, a financially-secure single mother who intends to donate her UCCB windfall to the NDP.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has promised that a New Democrat government would keep the enriched UCCB in place.

Tacky.

Jacob Two-Two

Yes, whoever heard of a party soliciting donations just before an election. How uncouth! This must truly be a first in Canadian politics.

Oh wait, it's just Pondering, deriding the NDP for every little thing they do, no matter how banal or commonplace it is. If she was there to see it, she would critise Mulcair for the way he puts his pants on in the morning.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Actually, I agree with Pondering on this one. I fully support the NDP soliciting for donations, but child care benefits are supposed to be used for children and their child care needs. I cannot believe that the NDP solicited single moms, many of whom are struggling to make ends meat, to take money that has been allocated to their children and turn it over to them for the election. This money was never meant to be donated to a political party. The optics of this are very bad indeed.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Misfit wrote:
Actually, I agree with Pondering on this one. I fully support the NDP soliciting for donations, but child care benefits are supposed to be used for children and their child care needs. I cannot believe that the NDP solicited single moms, many of whom are struggling to make ends meat, to take money that has been allocated to their children and turn it over to them for the election. This money was never meant to be donated to a political party. The optics of this are very bad indeed.

I'm with J22 on this. Money is the very definition of a fungible asset. That is, every dollar is exactly the same as any other one. Just because the government gives parents money, that doesn't somehow tag those dollars as morally dedicated to the ostensible purpose of the grant. Also, note the phrase "parents who don't need the newly enhanced universal child care benefit". There is no suggestion that those who badly need the money to care for their children should donate it. On the contrary, I think this is a rather clever way of attacking Harper with his own attempted bribe.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Dp

Misfit Misfit's picture

Dp

takeitslowly

. I cannot believe that the NDP solicited single moms, many of whom are struggling to make ends meat, to take money that has been allocated to their children and turn it over to them for the election 

 

I dont believe for one second, Tom Mulcair would ask single moms struggling to make end meets to use the money from the child benefit and donate it to the NDP.

 

Since the NDP is promising universal child care , i think it would be wise to say the money donated will go toward fighting and accomplishing affordable universal child care.

Misfit Misfit's picture

MM. Yes I can see your point that it is a clever way of attacking Harper with his own government payout, but the optics of it are bad. That money was located for childcare expenses. The other parties can capitalize on this and accuse the NDP of wanting to take money away from children to fund their campaign. I don't like it and this can really backfire on the NDP.

takeitslowly

The federal NDP is encouraging parents who don't need the newly enhanced universal child care benefit to donate the money to the party.

The party's latest fundraising email blast urges supporters to follow the example of Ella, a financially-secure single mother who intends to donate her UCCB windfall to the NDP.

The NDP's fundraising missive cites an email purportedly sent to Ottawa MP Paul Dewar by a woman named Ella.

Ella says she was disgusted by Employment Minister Pierre Poilievre's "offensive partisan announcement" earlier this week, touting the boost in UCCB payments which parents started receiving this week in a lump sum back-dated to January.http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-urges-parents-who-don-t-need-child-care-cheques-to-donate-them-to-party-1.3166803

Misfit Misfit's picture

The email made reference to Ella, a financially secure single mom who intends to turn her money over to the NDP. Some single mothers are financially secure, but most are not. I do not think the email should have used a single mother as an example of someone who supposedly wanted to turn her UCCB money over to the party. It presents a distorted view of most single mothers' financial standing and social reality, and it implies that single mothers are the ones who should be taking money away from their children to give to the NDP rather than the wealthier families who are using the money to buy BBQs and summer vacations. The email was short sighted IMO.

DLivings

I think the headline and the reality on this one don't quite match.  It's a great headline for those that would discredit.  Dewar's letter simply cites the story of one of his constituents, how incensed she was with Pollievre's posturing about the UCCB, and was therefore going to make a donation to the ndp.  Dewar simply encouraged others to follow Ella's lead and make donations to support the ndp's election.

A rather unfortunate juxtaposition of story and donation request...  and a rather misleading headline contrasted with the actual donation request.

 

DLivings

double post

takeitslowly

well a financially secure single mother did write to the NDP about her donation, and it is a fact that we cannot change.  

Misfit Misfit's picture

I am very NDP and I keep repeating myself for a reason. All it takes is a simple little email like this to backfire, spread like wildfire, and derail the entire election campaign. Family Allowance cheques are supposed to be used for children. It does not matter whether the families are wealthy or not, all the family allowance money is allocated for the children in this country and nothing else. It is a very serious violation of basic family allowance cheque principles for any political party to ask parents to take money that is meant for their children and give it to them as a campaign donation. A very serious boundary has been violated and this could end up hurting the NDP badly. We have had family allowance cheques since the 1940s in this country. It was the PCs who scrapped the program in the 1990s. I am angry that the Conservatives are reintroducing this merely as a vote buying scheme. I support the program, but Harper should have done this years ago. I am angry that JT is giving his family allowance cheque to charity as a vote buying stunt. That money was entrusted to him for his children. I am angry with the NDP for this email. All thee parties need a major reality check. They are all acting foolish.

Pondering

Trudeau has said that he would take the benefit away from wealthy families like his own and give it to those more in need. 

In an interview Tuesday, he said he’ll give that money to La Maison Bleue, a charitable group in his Montreal riding devoted to helping vulnerable women during pregnancy and the early days of motherhood.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudea...

There is no mention of "Ella" saying her letter could be made public and used for drumming up more donations. The letter is weird, she offers to sign the cheque over to him or cash it and give him the money. "Ella" could be connected to the NDP in some way. "Ella" is likely a friend of Paul Dewar's as it would be weird to endorse a cheque then send it in the mail. 

Trudeau's message is "if you don't need the Universal Child Credit, donate it to a charity helping mothers and children in need.

The NDP message is "if you don't need the Universal Child Credit donate it to us."

The NDP has promised to continue sending the cheques to everyone including the wealthy. 

As Misfit noted, the optics are bad for the NDP. Trudeau's money is still going to children, just those more in need than is own.

The NDP should have asked "Ella" to donate the money to a children's cause not advertised that they are going to accept it and ask for more.

sherpa-finn

Pondering wrote: The NDP should have asked "Ella" to donate the money to a children's cause....

Well, if Ella had been a Liberal supporter and written her letter to Liberal HQ, no doubt they would have advised her to just go out and spend it on beer and popcorn.

Misfit Misfit's picture

I believe that universal cheques to both wealthy and poor need to be mandatory. Some Liberals and Conservatives have used the argument that money for social programs should go to those most in need for years, but the question is, at what income level do you draw the line? The next question is, what is stopping another government from scaling back on that income level in the future to save money and then gradually phasing it out completely? This very same argument has been used over the years against universal healthcare in Canada by some right wing politicians. Their aim is to implement a two tier healthcare system with the goal to then eventually phase out government funded healthcare altogether. Universal social programs are extremely important even if it means that the wealthy benefit as well. It is such a small price to pay for fairness to all. ETA: Justin Trudeau has very clearly demonstrated that he does not understand the true spirit of universality, and he has shown us that he cannot be trusted with federal social programs. He has gone against the tradition of many previous federal Liberal governments with his donation to charity because he says he doesn't need the money.

Jacob Two-Two

You're overreacting Misfit. It's just a fundrasing letter like a million others. It's not going to precipitate anything but boredom.

Pondering

Misfit wrote:
I believe that universal cheques to both wealthy and poor need to be mandatory. Some Liberals and Conservatives have used the argument that money for social programs should go to those most in need for years, but the question is, at what income level do you draw the line? The next question is, what is stopping another government from scaling back on that income level in the future to save money and then gradually phasing it out completely? This very same argument has been used over the years against universal healthcare in Canada by some right wing politicians. Their aim is to implement a two tier healthcare system with the goal to then eventually phase out government funded healthcare altogether.

That is happening with medicare despite it's universality and schools are off-loading expenses to parents too.

Misfit wrote:
Universal social programs are extremely important even if it means that the wealthy benefit as well. It is such a small price to pay for fairness to all. ETA: Justin Trudeau has very clearly demonstrated that he does not understand the true spirit of universality, and he has shown us that he cannot be trusted with federal social programs.

The NDP daycare program isn't universal because a spot isn't garanteed for every child and each province gets to design their own criteria for admission and locations. Universality is best but if the coffers are bare it is best to give more to the most needy. Harper has left the coffers bare.

Misfit wrote:
He has gone against the tradition of many previous federal Liberal governments with his donation to charity because he says he doesn't need the money.

Giving the money his family will recieve to women and children in need doesn't go against any traditions.

Pierre C yr

The coffers are not bare. The country is rich and can easily afford basic social programs.  Question is who will have the courage to tax where there is excess inflation (rich/big business) or produce liquidity in case of deflation to get the means to fund programs and who wont.

Pondering

Pierre C yr wrote:

The coffers are not bare. The country is rich and can easily afford basic social programs.  Question is who will have the courage to tax where there is excess inflation (rich/big business) or produce liquidity in case of deflation to get the means to fund programs and who wont.

Mulcair is promising a balanced budget and a modest tax increase on corporations. I am fairly I certain that Harper has left a financial mess behind him that will take time and effort to untangle. No matter who takes power they have a hell of a job ahead of them.

I think if Mulcair does win some people are going to be bitterly disappointed in him to some extent unfairly.

socialdemocrati...

Pierre C yr wrote:

The coffers are not bare. The country is rich and can easily afford basic social programs.  Question is who will have the courage to tax where there is excess inflation (rich/big business) or produce liquidity in case of deflation to get the means to fund programs and who wont.

Amen. A small rise in corporate taxes and a repeal of some of the dumb Conservative promises (e.g.: income splitting) will help afford many, if not most of the electoral promises.

And then there's the stuff that isn't a drag on the budget.

Carbon pricing will finally get Canada doing something about climate change, and it actually generates revenue.

Electoral reform and MMP is basically revenue neutral.

Those are two of the most important changes that the country needs.

The federal minimum wage is less important, but still helpful, and involves no taxation. So does credit card and bank reform. And even if the NDP isn't perfect, I'd much rather have them at the negotiating table than any other party when it comes to trade, aboriginal affairs, and the United Nations.

I expect some compromises down the line. But they can't be more disappointing than the governments I've lived under in my lifetime.

 

 

felixr

I hope Mulcair tears their metaphorical throat out. There are a lot of Canadians very angry at Harper according to polling and the NDP has nothing to lose going full neg in ridings where the Conservatives think they are safe
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/windsor/ndp-showing-signs-they-will-hit-...

Pondering

felixr wrote:
I hope Mulcair tears their metaphorical throat out. There are a lot of Canadians very angry at Harper according to polling and the NDP has nothing to lose going full neg in ridings where the Conservatives think they are safe
">http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/windsor/ndp-showing-signs-they-will-hit-...

I see he is taking a leaf out of the Liberal handbook:

The NDP leader suggested Watson goes to Ottawa to receive his marching orders from the government, rather than representing the people in his riding while in Ottawa.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

felixr wrote:
I hope Mulcair tears their metaphorical throat out. There are a lot of Canadians very angry at Harper according to polling and the NDP has nothing to lose going full neg in ridings where the Conservatives think they are safe
">http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/canada/windsor/ndp-showing-signs-they-will-hit-...

I see he is taking a leaf out of the Liberal handbook:

The NDP leader suggested Watson goes to Ottawa to receive his marching orders from the government, rather than representing the people in his riding while in Ottawa.

The NDP are taking nothing from the Liberal handbook. If anything,it's the Liberals taking a leaf from the NDP handbook.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

*

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

NDP showing signs they will 'hit hard' this fall

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ndp-showing-signs-they-will-hit-ha...

NorthReport

Justin Trudeau made ‘dangerous’ move in rejecting NDP coalition 

Liberal leader is limiting his options, say B.C. political analysts

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Justin+Trudeau+made+dangerous+move+rejec...

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  10h10 hours ago

“Mulcair & #NDP are fast becoming the go-to choice for millions of Canadians who absolutely will not vote #CPC http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/25/mulcair-paints-trudeau-as-a-coward …

 

NorthReport

Liberal media complex pundit Scott Reid of "Paul Martin will win 250 seats" meme really put not just his foot, but his whole self, in it with his comments.   Frown

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  10m10 minutes ago

Lotta bad Liberals! Reid: All good Liberals should hold their nose and vote for Eve Adams | Ottawa Citizen http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-all-good-liberals-should-hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-eve-adams …

----------

4,100

NorthReport

Adams lost and political analysts are now discussing how much damage this does to Trudeau.

Popcorn and beer anyone?

All good Liberals should hold their nose and vote for Eve Adams

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-all-good-liberals-shoul...

NorthReport

Electric atmosphere in Brampton as Mulcair launches blistering broadside against Harper


http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/07/26/news/electric-atmosphere-bram...

NorthReport

What was Trudeau thinking?

Eve Adams crashes, grassroots repudiate Trudeau choice: Tim Harper

Justin Trudeau must wear a decision to bring a Conservative interloper into Toronto’s Eglinton-Lawrence riding.

In this summer of melting Liberal fortunes, this Sunday afternoon in a steamy high school auditorium was supposed to be all about Eve, Dimitri and Justin.

Instead it turned out to be all about prominent Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino and an Eglinton-Lawrence Liberal repudiation of interloper Eve Adams, her fiancé and one-time Conservative heavyweight Dimitri Soudas, and Justin Trudeau, the Liberal leader who brought the duo and their steamer-size luggage aboard the listing Liberal ship.

The winner was supposed to be the drama queen with the temper, the woman who had run afoul of Conservative brass for the bare-knuckles style — known generically as bullying — that she and Soudas employed in a previous Conservative nomination battle so tainted that she left before both contestants were tossed from the ring.

Soudas, the one-time Conservative power broker and loyal spokesperson for Harper had lost his job. Adams had abandoned a nomination bid and lost the support of her party. And then Trudeau found the pair while rooting around in Harper’s blue bin.

Now the one-time, would-be power couple have been cast aside by two parties and the Liberal leader has taken another political hit at the worst possible time.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/26/eve-adams-crashes-grassroo...

socialdemocrati...

I don't know that this is a bad thing for the Liberal party. They get Dimitri to play dirty politics for them, and Eve Adams disappears. A right-wing opportunist is off the ballot and out of the spotlight for the rest of the campaign.

nicky

Trudeau painted himself into a corner by embracing Adams. It happened about the same time he embraced C-51. Both moves severely tarnished his "progressive" image and assisted the rise of the NDP. That being said it is probably better for Trudeau that Adams has been rejected. The narrative of the grassroots rebelling against the leader is likely less problematic in the longer run than having such a tainted candidate on his team. I know Marco who is smart and driven. He is also much more likely in my view to beat Oliver.

mark_alfred

It does show Trudeau to be out of touch, though.  Reminds me of how Prentice looked when Smith was rejected.

terrytowel

It is not over for Eve Adams. Not by a long shot. Liberals are toying with the idea of parachuting her into Hamilton Mountain as the NDP candidate running is extremely unpopular with voters.

Might be an easier win for her in that riding.

josh

terrytowel wrote:

It is not over for Eve Adams. Not by a long shot. Liberals are toying with the idea of parachuting her into Hamilton Mountain as the NDP candidate running is extremely unpopular with voters.

Might be an easier win for her in that riding.

Why is the candidate, Scott Duval, extremely unpopular?

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:
It is not over for Eve Adams. Not by a long shot. Liberals are toying with the idea of parachuting her into Hamilton Mountain as the NDP candidate running is extremely unpopular with voters.

Might be an easier win for her in that riding.

Who says?

The party got whatever inside knowledge they wanted from her and her boyfriend. Her loss proves that the nominations were open and the riding did choose their preferred candidate which I think Trudeau wanted them to do as they already had a strong candidate for that riding.

Scott Reid was off the wall with his insistence that the nomination wasn't really open and that Liberals had to vote for Adams. Obviously not as she lost by a large margin.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

Who says?

The party got whatever inside knowledge they wanted from her and her boyfriend.

I would suspect the knowledge will come AFTER Eve secures a nomination.

That would be the deal, Eve gets a riding. They get the info.

This all seems moot now that the NDP is in the drivers seat.

New poll has come out saying most Canadians trust the NDP with the economy, and Harper is in last place!

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

terrytowel wrote:

 

New poll has come out saying most Canadians trust the NDP with the economy, and Harper is in last place!

Thanks for the encouraging news,TT

Pondering

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/26/eve-adams-crashes-grassroo...

It was supposed to be a victory for the long reach of a central party apparatus spreading its tentacles deep into the grassroots of a riding.

Instead it ended up being proof that local ridings choose their candidates not the central party apparatus.

For Trudeau, there was no clear win-win, but there was a lose-lose.

He found that spot.

Most Liberals believed Mendicino had a better shot at besting a sitting finance minister, but at least the party, had it chosen Adams, would have loyally followed the leader’s wishes and given the riding the candidate hand-picked from headquarters.

It was a win-win. Adams would have been a continuing problem had she won. Now she has gone and in doing so proven that Liberal nominations are open and candidates are not hand-picked from headquarters. Plus, the actual winner, Mendicino, has a better chance of beating Oliver.

Both candidates say Trudeau did not interfere locally. It is a ridiculous claim that the Liberals would have been better off if Adams had won because it would show loyalty to Trudeau. Had Adams won Timmy would have been claiming that the process was rigged.

 

terrytowel

Again this is not over for Eve. She is looking for another riding. Hamilton Mountain is at the top of  the list as the NDP candidate is extremely unpopular

josh

terrytowel wrote:

Again this is not over for Eve. She is looking for another riding. Hamilton Mountain is at the top of  the list as the NDP candidate is extremely unpopular

Again, where is your support that the candidate is extremely unpopular?

terrytowel

josh wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

Again this is not over for Eve. She is looking for another riding. Hamilton Mountain is at the top of  the list as the NDP candidate is extremely unpopular

Again, where is your support that the candidate is extremely unpopular?

Even the current MP Chris Charlton is unhappy with Scott DuVall running.

Amd that will hurt the NDP candidate in that riding, giving Eve Adams a leg-up

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The Liberals have zero chance of winning Hamilton Mountain this year. TT, you are talking nonsense, with no facts behind it. Furthermore, far from enhancing their chances, Eve Adams would be rejected more strongly than any local Liberal by the people here.

terrytowel

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The Liberals have zero chance of winning Hamilton Mountain this year. TT, you are talking nonsense, with no facts behind it.

Even with Chris Charlton coming out to REBUKE the current candidate for Hamilton Mountain? And residents unhappy with the candidate? Looks like an opportunity to me.

If Chris is openly unhappy with the choice, and made her feeling well known, that does carry weight in the riding,

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Even the current MP Chris Charlton is unhappy with Scott DuVall running.

During the nomination campaign, Charlton supported the losing candidate, Bryan Adamczyk, but everyone agreed that the vote was fair, and they all rallied behind Duvall after he won. As far as I know, there is no lasting split amongst party activists. Also, Duvall obviously does have significant name recognition and popularity in the riding, since he has been repeatedly elected to city council from a mountain ward.

Pages

Topic locked