Canadian Election 2019

Popped this open for anyone interested in discussing the Canadian Election this year.

Who would you like to see win, how, and why? Who do you think WILL win, regardless of whether you like them or not?

What are the important issues? What policy initiatives do you see being most needed? Most popular?

Something tells me it's going to be a long year. Might as well have fun with it.

OlNate said:

Popped this open for anyone interested in discussing the Canadian Election this year.

Who would you like to see win, how, and why? Who do you think WILL win, regardless of whether you like them or not?

What are the important issues? What policy initiatives do you see being most needed? Most popular?

Something tells me it's going to be a long year. Might as well have fun with it.

Click to expand...

I won't participate, not if Trudeau and Morneau are involved still. I always vote Liberal if I vote (well, there was that one year I voted Rhinoceros) but Trudeau pissed me off in less time than it took his old man.
If they name a new leader (J W-R?) I'll reconsider.
Bastards.

I still hope for another Liberal majority and I will vote Liberal, but I foresee an equal chance of a Conservative or Liberal minority.

Grand Mal said:

I won't participate, not if Trudeau and Morneau are involved still. I always vote Liberal if I vote (well, there was that one year I voted Rhinoceros) but Trudeau pissed me off in less time than it took his old man.
If they name a new leader (J W-R?) I'll reconsider.
Bastards.

Click to expand...

Raybould and Philpott probably won't be Liberals for much longer considering they have managed to piss off the entire party. Undermining your own party and leader is generally frowned upon, releasing that tape pretty much doomed them. The press seems to be going against them now too.

Grand Mal said:

I won't participate, not if Trudeau and Morneau are involved still. I always vote Liberal if I vote (well, there was that one year I voted Rhinoceros) but Trudeau pissed me off in less time than it took his old man.
If they name a new leader (J W-R?) I'll reconsider.
Bastards.

Click to expand...

Dang, but BC Liberals are tough on this guy... :lol: Not saying you're wrong, but the people who seem most pissed at JT are the folks out west that voted for him, if my FB feed is any indication... hehe.. .

Carjosse said:

I still hope for another Liberal majority and I will vote Liberal, but I foresee an equal chance of a Conservative or Liberal minority.

Click to expand...

I'm hoping for a Liberal minority, to be honest...liberal, or NDP. Hell, even a Conservative minority wouldn't be the end of the world.

I'm all for minority governments ATM...our parties need to learn to work together again. Having a minority government is a good way to determine which parties can do that, and which parties cannot.

Carjosse said:

Raybould and Philpott probably won't be Liberals for much longer considering they have managed to piss off the entire party. Undermining your own party and leader is generally frowned upon, releasing that tape pretty much doomed them. The press seems to be going against them now too.

Click to expand...

I wish she hadn't done that, recorded that conversation without telling the guy.

OlNate said:

Dang, but BC Liberals are tough on this guy... :lol: Not saying you're wrong, but the people who seem most pissed at JT are the folks out west that voted for him, if my FB feed is any indication... hehe.. .

Click to expand...

I nearly sat the last one out but the Conservative attack ads got me off my butt to go vote. My riding's pretty safe for the NDP but I don't like the idea of an NDP federal government much and Scheer hasn't impressed me, not enough to change my life-long prejudice against the Tories, anyway.

Grand Mal said:

I nearly sat the last one out but the Conservative attack ads got me off my butt to go vote. My riding's pretty safe for the NDP but I don't like the idea of an NDP federal government much and Scheer hasn't impressed me, not enough to change my life-long prejudice against the Tories, anyway.

Click to expand...

I don't think you have to worry about that, ever.

Grand Mal said:

I nearly sat the last one out but the Conservative attack ads got me off my butt to go vote. My riding's pretty safe for the NDP but I don't like the idea of an NDP federal government much and Scheer hasn't impressed me, not enough to change my life-long prejudice against the Tories, anyway.

Click to expand...

lol...you should just do the BC thing and vote Green...

Honestly, I might. They're a tad bit aggressive on the environmental front, but they've got some solid ideas.

Carjosse said:

I don't think you have to worry about that, ever.

Click to expand...

I think the natural role of the NDP is opposition, not government. We occasionally elect NDP provincial governments out here and it has sometimes gone badly wrong. This latest incarnation has looked good so far but I'm always waiting for some expensive financial blunder to happen.
The NDP is the only party where the federal and the provincial branches are related, if I remember right.
Never say never. If Trudeau alienates Quebec enough to make them turn to the NDP again, anything could happen. But I suspect you're right. Barring a spectacular crash-and-burn by the Libs, the NDP will always be bridesmaids.

OlNate said:

lol...you should just do the BC thing and vote Green...

Honestly, I might. They're a tad bit aggressive on the environmental front, but they've got some solid ideas.

Click to expand...

Well, they'd never buy a pipeline anyway.
Why our federal government owning a pipeline sounds like a good idea, I'll never know, but that's the least of the reasons Trudeau has lost me.

Grand Mal said:

I think the natural role of the NDP is opposition, not government. We occasionally elect NDP provincial governments out here and it has sometimes gone badly wrong. This latest incarnation has looked good so far but I'm always waiting for some expensive financial blunder to happen.
The NDP is the only party where the federal and the provincial branches are related, if I remember right.
Never say never. If Trudeau alienates Quebec enough to make them turn to the NDP again, anything could happen. But I suspect you're right. Barring a spectacular crash-and-burn by the Libs, the NDP will always be bridesmaids.

Click to expand...

That was purely a fluke by a very charismatic leader and even then that was not enough, Quebec is the Liberals home turf, they will always have base there. The NDP just cannot win where it counts, namely Quebec and the GTA, the NDP never has and never will jive with those areas. They are too Western for Quebec and too left-wing for the GTA.

I'm hoping for NDP governance, but we'll almost certainly get a Conservative or Liberal minority depending on how damaging this ongoing scandal is.

Liberals and Conservatives alike are hopelessly corrupt, Trudeau's a two faced neoliberal liar and a consummate friend of the wealthy and their lobbies, but I have no doubt that Sheer is categorically worse.

Carjosse said:

That was purely a fluke by a very charismatic leader and even then that was not enough, Quebec is the Liberals home turf, they will always have base there. The NDP just cannot win where it counts, namely Quebec and the GTA, the NDP never has and never will jive with those areas. They are too Western for Quebec and too left-wing for the GTA.

Click to expand...

If they had another Layton or a Sanders in leadership, someone compelling and magnetic, the NDP would easily be competitive; there's no question about it. The dominant reason the NDP has always failed to build up to the level of the Cons and Liberals is and has pretty much always been lacking and uncharismatic leadership.

Had Layton not been taken by cancer, I have no doubt the political landscape of Canada would be very different right now.

It's not a very good choice before us.

The Liberals under Truedau the Younger are torn between traditional corruption/cronyism and Trudeau's choice to reinvigorate the party with new blood not yet indoctrinated into the yoke of party, caucus and cabinet discipline. Trudeau's cozying-up to big corporate interests like Kinder-Morgan in the Pipeline debacle which cost tax-payers a fortune to overpay Texan investors and the economic/political siren-song of SNC-Lavalin to avoid the full legal consequences of that company's alleged corruption in North Africa show us that Trudeau is reverting to an old liberal type which is toxic while the Young Turks like JWR and Philpot are refusing to play ball with him. Trudeau needs to strengthen his ethical spine and stop pandering to these powerful interests and their allies in provincial politics. One day he may become a good leader but he is breaking his brand with the grime of realpolitik and bleeding away his good character.

Andrew Sheer seems to be a rather bumbling opportunistic predator from Regina who would happily do his part to go far too pro-big-business, wreck more of the fraying Canadian welfare state, try to further "Americanise" Canada and harmonise our foreign policy with the militaristic and predatory practices of the post-Cold War USA. Not an attractive option to my mind.

Jagmeet Singh Dhaliwal may have some promise but his party is so undisciplined that it will be like herding cats to keep them on message and on platform. Such a "idealist social rabble" without strong leadership could easily swing far too far to the fiscal left resulting in greater deficits, alienation of legitimate business interests and an unhealthy preoccupation with fringe but fashionable social and societal causes at the expense of bread and butter issues.

Then there is Elizabeth May and the Greens. She is the most capable leader of the four in my opinion but leads only a fringe party and thus her personal qualities and good managerial skills are moot. She can be influential however.

I hope for a Liberal minority government which cashiers Justin Trudeau and purges its leadership ranks of the crony-corruptionists. Trudeau might then learn and return at some point in the future as a better and more seasoned leader. I hope for a rennaissance of the Conservative Party of Canada into a fiscally conservative but a more socially agnostic party which is less aligned to commerce and finance and more aligned with small and medium sized business and with working Canadians. I hope for the birth of a fiscally responsible NDP which has the internal discipline to focus on a few important economic and social reforms rather than tumbling us into economic and societal upheaval through revolutionary change. I hope for a stronger Green Party to act as the environmental conscience of our Parliament.
I do not want to see the emergence of anymore regional or local nationalist parties which seek to better one part of Canada at the expense of the rest.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

I hope for the birth of a fiscally responsible NDP which has the internal discipline to focus on a few important economic and social reforms rather than tumbling us into economic and societal upheaval through revolutionary change. I hope for a stronger Green Party to act as the environmental conscience of our Parliament.

Click to expand...

I have no issues with a commitment to 'fiscal responsibility' but the meaning of that is often nebulous, and can be, and often is code language for such idiotic things as austerity, privatization, excess/needless social spending/program reductions and so on, and otherwise context inappropriate fiscal policy. For example, Mulcair's idiotic insistence on 'balanced budgets' when Canada was in a recession; one of several missteps that cost him electoral votes, including my own. To me fiscal responsibility means seeking and ascertaining good value on tax payer money and govt investments, which is what I hope you have in mind.

Beyond that, as someone familiar with NDP policy, I don't recall anything about it that was inclined to 'tumbling' towards 'economic and societal upheaval through revolutionary change'. That sounds more like a grossly exaggerated Liberal/Conservative wingnut mischaracterization/caricature. Despite the party's inability to stick to key priorities at times, I don't recognize this apparent drive towards upheaval and revolution in terms of its policy goals.

Surrealistik said:

I have no issues with a commitment to 'fiscal responsibility' but the meaning of that is often nebulous, and can be, and often is code language for such idiotic things as austerity, privatization, excess/needless social spending/program reductions and so on, and otherwise context inappropriate fiscal policy. For example, Mulcair's idiotic insistence on 'balanced budgets' when Canada was in a recession; one of several missteps that cost him electoral votes, including my own. To me fiscal responsibility means seeking and ascertaining good value on tax payer money and govt investments, which is what I hope you have in mind.

Beyond that, as someone familiar with NDP policy, I don't recall anything about it that was inclined to 'tumbling' towards 'economic and societal upheaval through revolutionary change'. That sounds more like a grossly exaggerated Liberal/Conservative wingnut mischaracterization/caricature. Despite the party's inability to stick to key priorities at times, I don't recognize this apparent drive towards upheaval and revolution in terms of its policy goals.

Click to expand...

Surrealistik:

For the purposes of clarification when I say fiscal responsibility I mean avoiding deficit financing unless a serious recession makes it necessary, not undertaking policies which will damage or shock the economy of Canada, not undertaking policies which have unsustainable legacy costs that will saddle the state with greater costs than revenues and not creating a climate where legitimate business which employs Canadians feels it must leave in order to remain viable.

I am still dealing with the mess that the Bob Rae NDP Government created in Ontario more than 30 years ago and was never a fan of either Jack Layton or Thomas MulCair. The NDP should be looking to revitalise the organised labour movement, to protect and modestly expand the Canadian and provincial welfare state if possible for the benefit of the poor, to promote responsible and sustainable business expansion, to develop secondary, tertiary and quaternary levels of industry and commerce in Canada instead of relying on primary extraction of natural resources which denies us the value added of processing the resources and finally to break the financial/political power of financial, communications and commercial conglomerates over governments here because these conglomerates are abusing Canadian citizens and residents.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

OlNate said:

Popped this open for anyone interested in discussing the Canadian Election this year.

Who would you like to see win, how, and why? Who do you think WILL win, regardless of whether you like them or not?

What are the important issues? What policy initiatives do you see being most needed? Most popular?

Something tells me it's going to be a long year. Might as well have fun with it.

Click to expand...

I would like someone - anyone - who does not share his name with an airport to win. But if you insist on a name: Jody Wilson Raybould. You need not look further.

Sweden said:

I would like someone - anyone - who does not share his name with an airport to win. But if you insist on a name: Jody Wilson Raybould. You need not look further.

Click to expand...

I agree...she's be a popular choice. I don't know if she's a prime minister, though...but if she ran, she'd probably do well.

At any rate, she's not a Liberal anymore:

Tuesday Night Massacre: Trudeau ejects Jody Wilson-Raybould, Jane Philpott from Liberal caucus | National Post

Evilroddy said:

Surrealistik:

For the purposes of clarification when I say fiscal responsibility I mean avoiding deficit financing unless a serious recession makes it necessary, not undertaking policies which will damage or shock the economy of Canada, not undertaking policies which have unsustainable legacy costs that will saddle the state with greater costs than revenues and not creating a climate where legitimate business which employs Canadians feels it must leave in order to remain viable.

I am still dealing with the mess that the Bob Rae NDP Government created in Ontario more than 30 years ago and was never a fan of either Jack Layton or Thomas MulCair. The NDP should be looking to revitalise the organised labour movement, to protect and modestly expand the Canadian and provincial welfare state if possible for the benefit of the poor, to promote responsible and sustainable business expansion, to develop secondary, tertiary and quaternary levels of industry and commerce in Canada instead of relying on primary extraction of natural resources which denies us the value added of processing the resources and finally to break the financial/political power of financial, communications and commercial conglomerates over governments here because these conglomerates are abusing Canadian citizens and residents.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that definition, nevermind the difficulty at times of determinining what will damage or shock the economy and in what time frame (short? medium? long? What about short term pain for long term growth? etc), or the calculus of overall societal benefit when one does so, if there's an upside to policies that might nominally tamper economic growth/the economy (environmental regulation, higher taxes in exchange for subsidized post-secondary or UBI, etc). Per your definition for example, we wouldn't be able to raise taxes ever, or engage in any deficit spending outside of crisis, even if the long term benefits would easily warrant it. Retooling the Canadian economy away from resource extraction, reorienting the country towards high skill/high training via initiatives to improve populace education and tackle structural unemployment, and dealing with the longer term consequences of automation and outsourcing is almost certainly going to require deficit spending in the short term.

I don't think anyone should look to the Bob Rae (who was more of a Liberal than anything else) days anymore; it ain't remotely the same people or the same party. People have got to let it go; that just isn't a reflection of the NDP as it exists today. That having been said, of all the parties that could and would take bold measures to reform the economy to tackle the 21st century, I actually see the NDP as being the most likely to do so, as that will require serious short term govt spending and investment to overhaul an economy that is still very extraction oriented, and requires substantial initiatives like paid college, UBI, infrastructure initiatives and the like. Moreover, they are by far the most likely to tackle and diffuse the power of corporate interests and oligopolies which wield such tremendous power in Canada.

I usually vote Liberal because I do not like the neo-conservative party. I was a David Orchard supporter. They screwed him.
Anyway, I’m voting NDP or Green if Trudeau resigns then I’ll give the Liberals another shot, maybe.
It’s depressing.

Surrealistik said:

I'm not sure I entirely agree with that definition, nevermind the difficulty at times of determinining what will damage or shock the economy and in what time frame (short? medium? long? What about short term pain for long term growth? etc), or the calculus of overall societal benefit when one does so, if there's an upside to policies that might nominally tamper economic growth/the economy (environmental regulation, higher taxes in exchange for subsidized post-secondary or UBI, etc).

Click to expand...

Edited quotation for word count.

Surrealistik:

I think you have accurately delineated a rational cost-benefit requirement which all parties from the right to the left should do as due diligence before making platform promises which may do real harm to our society and economy. The NDP and every other party should do that too, weighing the economic costs/benefits with the social costs/benefits of the policies they advance and if elected to government effect. There are many ways to bring about development and taxing and spending (fiscal policy) are just two tools in the government's tool box. Policies can be enacted to get programmes rolling which we need without putting undue stress on the economy. For example retiring debt to reduce debt service charges and using those interest payment savings to implement needed social programmes. Returning the Bank of Canada to its original charter role of lending money to the Federal, provincial and municipal governments for infrastructure projects at very low interest rates rather than borrowing the money from private lenders who charge higher interest. This way government/public financing will not compete with private financing and private borrowers will feel the benefits of lower rates due to lower demand for bank-created fiat money and near-monies. Implementing worker equity programmes where a small portion of worker income is diverted into purchasing shares of their publicly traded companies or other companies will give workers a bigger stake in their companies' futures which should ease acrimonious labour/management relations and could bolster productivity as firms morph from top down hierarchies into bottom up capitalist cooperatives.

A technology tax could be levied upon companies and firms wishing to replace labour-intensive production which gainfully employs humans with capital-intensive, AI-mediated, robotic production or management, in order to reduce costs. The machines would be taxed yearly based on the labour costs they saved in order to dissuade firms from creating too much unemployment in the quest to reduce costs; private cost-savings which cause external societal costs which are borne by the public purse. Capital transfer taxes and electronic transaction taxes could reduce the mobility of capital and would allow Canadian governments to force businesses to "pay to play" in the Canadian economy. This would have to be done in concert with other cooperating nations facing labour market collapses and capital flight due to technology-based and off-shoring-based, structural unemployment.

The developing of a social economy where non-commercial, non-financial but socially beneficial activities could be monetised and rewarded would further diversify and expand our economy. The possibilities are nearly endless and do not have to shock and tamp down the economy if these new approaches are brought in gently and thoughtfully. Why we insist upon applying 19th and 20th century economics to 21st century problems is beyond me?

I wish I could ignore Bob Rae but his legacy still effects things like rental agreements and non-functional public housing programmes in Ontario as does Mr. Harrises Conservative legacy in public low-cost housing which is coming into full effect only now. The NDP may have changed but it's legacy still lingers in law and echoes in public policy lot these many years later. I'll-considered policy decisions today could reverberate through our history for years to come. The idealists of the NDP, the Greens and the Liberals must learn this as must the heartless austerity pragmatists of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

I agree that the NDP might seem the poster boys and girls of fundamental change but I also think they don't have the institutional wisdom and the power to do such changes successfully. These changes must come from several,parties working in cooperation and in succession as their political fortunes wax and wane.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I'll be voting Liberal. The NDP stand no choice of gaining power and I don't want another 4+ years of the Conservatives. Scheer is nutso.

I'm not happy with Canadian politics at all right now. My voting is strategic and I am voting for the lesser of two evils. I don't feel that abstaining is the solution. Usually it is liberals who abstain and it's how we ended up with a Harper majority. Canada still has not recovered from Harper and it probably never will.

Evilroddy said:

I think you have accurately delineated a rational cost-benefit requirement which all parties from the right to the left should do as due diligence before making platform promises which may do real harm to our society and economy. The NDP and every other party should do that too, weighing the economic costs/benefits with the social costs/benefits of the policies they advance and if elected to government effect. There are many ways to bring about development and taxing and spending (fiscal policy) are just one two tools in the government's tool box. Policies can be enacted to get programmes rolling which we need without putting undue stress on the economy. For example retiring debt to reduce debt service charges and using those interest payment savings to implement needed social programmes. Returning the Bank of Canada to its original charter role of lending money to the Federal, provincial and municipal governments for infrastructure projects at very low interest rates rather than borrowing the money from private lenders who charge higher interest. This way government/public financing will not compete with private financing and private borrowers will feel the benefits of lower rates due to lower demand for bank-created fiat money. Implementing worker equity programmes where a small portion of worker income is diverted into purchasing shares of their publicly traded companies or other companies will give workers a bigger stake in their companies' futures which should ease acrimonious labour/management relations and could bolster productivity as firms morph from top down hierarchies to bottom up capitalist cooperatives..

Click to expand...

Certainly, there are many ways to improve things without causing significant economic fallout/consequences. However, unintended consequences are abound, and picking them out is not always (and often isn't) easy.

I wish I could ignore Bob Rae but his legacy still effects things like rental agreements and non-functional public housing programmes in Ontario as does Mr. Harrises Conservative legacy in public low-cost housing which is coming into full effect only now. The NDP may have changed but it's legacy still lingers in law and echoes in public policy lot these many years later. I'll-considered policy decisions today could reverberate through our history for years to come. The idealists of the NDP, the Greens and the Liberals must learn this as must the heartless austerity pragmatists of the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Click to expand...

Legacy or not, the party of Bob Rae simply isn't the party of the NDP of today.

Further, I would object to your association of austerity with 'pragmatism' (though its proponents often love to style themselves as pragmatists) when austerity often isn't about honouring pragmatism so much as it is typically about reducing the role of govt on either a raw ideological basis, or attempting to tackle debt in a myopic way that ultimately proves counterproductive (see Greece's economy shrinking faster than its debt).

I agree that the NDP might seem the poster boys and girls of fundamental change but I also think they don't have the institutional wisdom and the power to do such changes successfully.

Click to expand...

I think that depends entirely on the people involved.