Run Up to Election 2019

[Remius]

So, do people deplore the unethical behaviour of Trudeau and the LPC? Sure. Is it enough to warrant switching from the LPC to the CPC? You have to take an actual look at the difference between the two, not just their leaders, and ask which is better for Canada.

And the crux of it is, once you do that, you realize that who's at the helm and what they did don't actually matter at all.

And that is likely why the LPC hasn't dropped in support that much but Trudeau has.  I am sure plenty of voters voted liberal despite Trudeau not because of him.

 

[PuckChaser]

So, do people deplore the unethical behaviour of Trudeau and the LPC? Sure. Is it enough to warrant switching from the LPC to the CPC? You have to take an actual look at the difference between the two, not just their leaders, and ask which is better for Canada.

I mean, if you're going to vote for someone again who's been the only Prime Minister paying fines for ethical breaches, so you can have legal weed, GBA+ and carbon taxes, you deserve the economy grinding to a halt due to literally no rational economic policy.

The rest of us have a higher ethical and moral standard expected of the Prime Minister of a G7 country.

 

[FJAG]

Identity politics works both ways. I'm not going to not vote for someone solely on one scandal.

Would I rather have an incompetent PM and a corrupt party but who's policies I agree with; or
Would I rather have a competent PM, a less corrupt party (lol), but a bunch of policies that I totally disagree with.
. . .

That's basically it though; there's not much difference between the CPC and LPC policies other than the CPC tends to trend more towards fiscal control and balancing budgets while the LPC trends towards more largess for social programs in defiance of fiscal restraint. Neither one of which impacts the majority of voters significantly.

Effectively people get drawn towards one or the other about perceptions of whether the party/candidates are competent and committed to furthering the lives of their constituents. Unfortunately its virtually impossible to do demonstrable performance measurement on whether one's expectations are in fact being met. Instead we get vague assurances that the given party has "created more jobs"; "been greener than the other"; made more apologies for centuries old wrongs" etc etc.

Quite frankly much of my negative opinion about the LPC has been my belief that for many decades (centuries?) they have been the protectors of corrupt/voracious corporations centered in their ridings and the darlings of the bloated civil service. SNC and the Norman affairs have certainly reinforced my perceptions.

On the other hand, the CPC has done nothing recently to earn and keep my faith in them (in fact my better half--a long time CPC supporter--has been so disgusted by them of late that she declined her ballot in the last election). I can see where many new voters will have a hard time making a choice in the next election and why our voter turnout is so low.

:brickwall:

 

[RangerRay]

Identity politics works both ways. I'm not going to not vote for someone solely on one scandal.

Would I rather have an incompetent PM and a corrupt party but who's policies I agree with; or
Would I rather have a competent PM, a less corrupt party (lol), but a bunch of policies that I totally disagree with.

Similarity, what's more important to you? Social policy or economic policy? If someone could prove that they could make us all rich, but we'd have to execute all people who pronounce "Gif" as "Jif" would you take that trade?

Ok, that's a ridiculous example, but lets look how Trump got support form so may "normal" people. Look at how he survived all the allegations of sexual harassment, including that abhorrent audio recording with TMZ. People were rightly mortified at the things he said and did, but would they rather have Trump and republican policies, or a less deplorable Clinton and Democratic policies? For a lot of them who voted Trump, they recognized that Trump was a vile creature undeserving of the office of President, but they felt the damage of a Democratic president would be worse than damage caused by Trump.

So, do people deplore the unethical behaviour of Trudeau and the LPC? Sure. Is it enough to warrant switching from the LPC to the CPC? You have to take an actual look at the difference between the two, not just their leaders, and ask which is better for Canada.

And the crux of it is, once you do that, you realize that who's at the helm and what they did don't actually matter at all.

Speaking for myself, I was faced with this predicament when I lived in BC.

As a right-leaning free-enterpriser, I had one party to vote for, the BC Liberals (really a Liberal-Conservative free-enterprise coalition).

After a couple of terms with Gordon Campbell, and later Christy Clark, it became apparent that it was a rotten, sleazy, crony-capitalist party beholden to corporate and wealthy Chinese interests.  They didn't care about regular folks.

However, the only viable party to vote for against them is the NDP.  The BC Conservatives are a fringe rump.

In BC, contrary to stereotypes, most people are deathly scared of the NDP, aka The Socialist Horde.  The NDP wins when the free-enterprise vote is split.

For the last two terms, the BC Liberals won despite the stench, because most voters were more scared of the alternative than of the stink and corruption of the governing Liberals.  Most people still remembered the '90's.

For me, the sleaze and crony-capitalism were too much.  After Christy Clarke became leader, I voted NDP.  Even though I disagreed with almost every policy of the NDP, I felt that the BC Liberals had to be cleansed of the cronyism and sleaze.  If that meant 4 years of NDP, so be it. 

During that election, I was in the minority of free-enterprise voters.  Most held their nose and voted BC Liberal because the NDP scared them (and me for that matter) shitless.

In the last election, it appears more BC Liberal voters felt the way I did or stayed home.  Either way, from here it does not look like the BC Liberals learned their lesson.  They chose another Howe Street elitist rather than someone who has a clue about the problems of regular people.

So yes, for me, issues like competency, corruption and character matter.

 

[Furniture]

That's basically it though; there's not much difference between the CPC and LPC policies other than the CPC tends to trend more towards fiscal control and balancing budgets while the LPC trends towards more largess for social programs in defiance of fiscal restraint. Neither one of which impacts the majority of voters significantly.

I imagine many Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese voters felt that way at one time as well.

One party is pushing us closer to being a northern Greece, the other seems to be content halting the slide a bit. Despite my lack of children I know who I want plotting the course for our nation's future.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The 'big five' Canadian banks are all publicly traded, and their largest owners are in fact each other and their own investment banking branches, plus a couple of the major mutual funds / pensions (Vanguard, Fidelity, Quebec Pension Plan, etc). Almost all of the major shareholders are themselves publicly traded companies owned by an increasingly broad array of international financial powerhouses the more one follows ownership up. Major share holdings for these companies are all disclosed and pretty easy to follow if one cares to look.

The media industry is a bit more nebulous. Rogers is sufficiently owned by the Rogers family that it can be fairly called privately controlled. They're a Toronto family. Bell is publicly traded and has no controlling shareholders, but rather is owner by a broad array of major institutional investors. Corus - a Shaw holding - is privately controlled by the Shaw family of Alberta. Quebecor is controlled by the Peladeau family, but given PKP's history with the Parti Québecois, I'm not sure if he can be credited as among the 'Laurentian Elite' since that perjorative has a necessarily Liberal connotation... And Quebecor also owns the Sun chain, so I'm not sure if that really fits the 'Liberals own the media' line of rhetoric. Anyway, moving right past that awkward stumble, we've got Postmedia- they're publicly traded with two different share classes to navigate around foreign-control regulations, but they aren't even truly a Canaidan controlled company anymore- the biggest strings are held by US hedge funds.

Now, I'm only speaking about what I've actually spoken to - the media and banking companies. I've not gone into detail on the other ventures you mentioned, though I'm happy to concede that there is probably considerable influence within major Quebec businesses like SNC, Bombardier, and Powercorp. Further dissecting that is beyond the scope of my reply. I will say though that to try to paint our media and banks as if they are in the greedy, grasping hands of some small group of Québecois Liberals must at least arch one's eyebrows. I would respectfully suggest that whatever time you're spending reading sources that lead you to this mindset, perhaps devote a portion of that to fact checking things like corporate ownership... The info is all out there. Frankly some of what you said borders nearly on the hysterical.

Then I'll go beyond your flirtatious and cursory research. His politics and climate rhetoric aside, this guy did a better research job than I ever could to peel back the Power Corp onion. It scratches the surface  https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-02-12/finance-fossil-fuels-and-climate-change/

Yes, the info is out there. You need to look in the right spot. Many similar graphs and explanations from more reputable sources also exist. Some deeper, some not. I gave you the first one I came across. You can look up what you want. Or not.

Twice today you have attacked me with ad hominems. You're back on ignore, no more replies.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/justin-trudeau-is-an-actor-not-a-prime-minister/

Justin Trudeau is an actor, not a prime minister
Barbara Kay by Barbara Kay
1 day ago

Justin Trudeau’s “contrition” session with the press turned out to be a nothingburger. He did not apologize. He would only cop to an “erosion of trust” between his guy, Gerald Butts, and Jody Wilson-Raybould, implying that Canadians should be blaming Mr. Erosion, not him. He allowed as how “there is always room for improvement,” the kind of thing one sees written on one’s children’s report card. He has nothing against contrition—in fact, he was on his way up north that very day to express contrition to the Inuit … for the past deeds of other people, that is, something he excels at.

As National Post reporter John Ivison noted in his column Mar 8, Trudeau’s press conference was “the enactment of humility,” and not the real thing. Exactement! “Enactment” is in fact the story of Trudeau’s public life. He is all political theatre, shining when he has memorized a script (“Canada’s back!” “Diversity is our strength!”…”Because it’s 2015!”…”Jobs!”), but very much at sea when the other actors walk away from the parts his scriptwriters assigned to them. At which point, as in his “contrition” press conference, he hits verbal bathos: “to move forward, not backward,” or “every day as prime minister I learn new things.”

Quebec journalist Richard Martineau delivered the cruellest thrust: “[Trudeau] thought he was indestructible, now he realizes he’s only a human being like the others. Goodbye Superman, hello Clark Kent.” Ouch. The New York Times wasn’t much kinder: “the fresher the face, the more obvious the blemishes.” Two-thirds of Canadians tell pollsters Trudeau has lost the moral authority to govern. That’s today. Come election day, who knows.

We had full warning of what we were going to get in Justin way back in 2000, when he performed the eulogy at his father’s funeral. And oh my goodness, “perform” is the operative word. Recently I found out Gerald Butts—of whom I had never heard at the time—had helped him write it. Well, that may explain a lot. Who begins a eulogy, “Friends, Romans, countrymen” – I mean, apart from Marc Antony in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar? It was an extremely odd opening, because it conjures up one of the most egregious power grabs in western history, by a cunning political upstart with a silver tongue and an instinct for crowd-pleasing.

What I found disturbing about that eulogy wasn’t its content (at least what followed the “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” bit), which was beyond reproach, but the delivery: over-polished for a young man in deep mourning, as though it had been rehearsed in front of a mirror over and over again. I found disconcerting the continual, calculating scans of the audience, the wooing cadence, the carefully calibrated pauses, the eyes cast shyly downward and the lip bitten at the correct moment, the incongruous little smile playing at the corners of the mouth, as if he were savouring the rapt expressions on his audience’s faces, the eyes dry throughout, but then, as if on cue and command—at “Je t’aime, Papa’—the tears, the slow walk to the coffin and the head bowed upon it, as if in spontaneous emotion, which would have been moving, but as it was so clearly not spontaneous, as it was so clearly planned for effect and to cast him, Justin, in a noble glow, it seemed all about him, and therefore (for me) cringe-making. Upon which a grand burst of applause erupted, as though everyone knew they were at a play rather than a funeral. But what the hell? It was a damn fine play!

Yes, I know he was a drama teacher, but the point about good acting is that you’re not supposed to know it’s acting. For me, the acting was all I could see. For me, that eulogy was the height of kitsch. The writer Milan Kundera succinctly defined kitsch as “the second tear.” The “first tear” is private and unfiltered, the genuine, spontaneous response to strong emotion. The second tear is public and self-reflexive, summoned rather than greeted. Unlike natural tears, second tears act as a purgative for the shedder only when mirrored in the eyes of others. Kitsch and virtue signalling are closely aligned. In both, the performance of empathic sentiment is taken as a form of action.

All Trudeau’s lofty and often lachrymose statements seem like “second tear” moments to me: rehearsed, scripted, and completely detached from the messiness of life on the ground, from which he has been protected all his life. He welcomes the world to Canada’s open door, making little to no distinction between legal and illegal entrants, but “the world” won’t get anywhere near his secure dwelling. He moistens up at the concept of feminism, but his own wife has happily accepted a 1950s-era role, and he bullies actual feminists when they don’t agree with him. He speaks frequently about “who we are” as Canadians, and the wonderful values we embody. But when his own political future is at stake, “who we are” doesn’t enter the equation, even when it involves corruption on a grand scale, with sickening implications for victims abroad.

As a child with extraordinary public privilege, Justin Trudeau toured the world and met many heads of state, but he failed to move beyond warm childhood memories of friendly Uncle Fidel and come to grips with toxic ideologies and the human wreckage they cause. (At the funeral, Fidel’s face was impossible to read, but he seemed lost in wonderment to me, and I was imagining he wished he had kidnapped Justin when he had the chance to groom as his head of PR.)

Justin is all surface. The selfie, the socks, the rolled sleeve and loosened tie, his and Sophie’s get-a-room Vogue Magazine cover, the Mr. Dressup tour of India: it’s all showmanship and brand messaging. Culturally, Trudeau is the personification of kitsch.

How did this hollow, opportunistic, attention-needy man get elected in the first place? We all know. His name and his face and his acting skills. (If the eulogy for his father didn’t convince you of his true métier—the theatre—perhaps this performance, as an MP in 2012, responding to criticism of an ill-judged comment expressing sympathy for Quebec separatism in certain circumstances, ironic in the light of the present scandal, will).

Seriously, that was the sum total of what he had to offer, and enough Canadians bought his fool’s gold to enable the present scandal. Those who voted for him can’t pretend they thought he had the smarts or the experience (in any demanding field, never mind politics) or the passion for leadership or a history of contribution to public life or the intellectual heft or the gravitas to recommend him for leadership of the nation.

Everyone knew who he was: a pretty face, an affable celebrity-by-association with charm to spare, apparent sincerity, a willingness to be “managed,” political and social capital to burn in Quebec, and an earnest belief in the politically correct pieties that had been downloaded into his all-too-receptive brain at university. Add to these qualities, moreover, the egregious vanity—and sorry (not sorry) to be harsh, but the lack of character—to accept an invitation to power he knew in his heart had nothing to do with personal merit. Cynical chickens, meet ignominious roost.

 

[Rifleman62]

I find it hilarious, incredible, that the MSN is now only just becoming aware how useless Trudeau is.

 

[Jed]

I find it hilarious, incredible, that the MSN is now only just becoming aware how useless Trudeau is.

Bad Journalism plus monetary incentives can warp common sense.

 

[Furniture]

I find it hilarious, incredible, that the MSN is now only just becoming aware how useless Trudeau is.

The media hated Harper. In their minds anybody but Harper was better, and Trudeau had an easy last name to sell in certain circles.

What is surprising to me is that they are turning on him now.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From another thread ...

March 19: Federal budget with some nifty new things.

March 26: "To execute this agenda to support and build the middle class, we are returning to the people for a fresh mandate"

May 14: The Running of the Reptiles.


This prediction, plus $2, will get you a large double-double at Timmies.

This, from an English-language Montreal weekly, shared with the usual Copyright Act "fair dealings" caveat (highlights mine)...

Is Justin Trudeau really relaxing in Florida this week to recharge his batteries and forget about the SNC Lavalin  scandal? Or is he getting ready to hit the road for a re-election campaign?

Several good sources tell me that Trudeau will soon pull the trigger on an early May election. It makes a lot of sense. He cannot have this story  follow him for the next six months. So after his party tables a good news budget, he will tell Canadians that he did the right thing by asking Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General at the time, to intervene in an ongoing criminal prosecution case against SNC Lavalin. He wanted to save jobs and if the opposition has a problem with that he will let the people decide.

Several suppliers who are called upon by candidates in  federal elections have told me they were contacted already to  be prepared to  start printing material soon for a May vote. This  would catch the  opposition  off guard. The Tories  do not have all of their candidates (plus they have Maxim Bernier set to split votes in different ridings), the NDP are a mess and the Bloc Québecois are just getting to know their new leader.

Trudeau will clearly dump the disloyal Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott. The Tories  would be wise to recruit them.

It is a calculated gamble, but one that could give Trudeau another four years in office.

Caveat lector and all that, but if true & represented accurately, the second highlight seems far more indicative/predictive than the first ... op:

 

[Remius]

And the Admiral Norman trial won't be happening in may as opposed to the fall where all of this will get drudged up again. 


Also, equally important to note is that an early snap election would dissolve parliament and end all House business including committees.  Like say, oh, the justice committee...


http://www.ourcommons.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch08&Seq=7

 

[The Bread Guy]

And the Admiral Norman trial won't be happening in may as opposed to the fall where all of this will get drudged up again. 

Don't know about that*, but ...

Also, equally important to note is that an early snap election would dissolve parliament and end all House business including committees.  Like say, oh, the justice committee...

http://www.ourcommons.ca/MarleauMontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch08&Seq=7

... that is an intriguing reminder  ;D

* -- ... although this is an interesting take on the whole fracas & possible impact on the trial:

The looming trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and his defence team’s allegations of political interference in the case could push swing voters away from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, says one pollster, by shoring up a perception created by the SNC-Lavalin scandal that Mr. Trudeau’s team likes to meddle where it shouldn’t to help out big business.

Some current and former Liberal insiders and government officials are speculating that the government may wish for the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Norman on breach of trust charges to be dropped. However, one Ottawa lawyer with experience representing clients in the government and military says the government wouldn’t dare to direct the public prosecutor to drop the charges.

“At the moment, when the entire legal system is under not only a magnifying glass, a microscope, there’s no bloody way anybody who is anybody within the political regime would dare even to get anywhere close to it,” said Michel Drapeau, a lawyer and former colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces, who is not involved in the Norman case but regularly represents Canadian civil servants and military members ...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Nor will there be an Ethics Commissioner sticking his unwelcome snout into the affairs of Cabinet, the PMO and the PCO now that Conflict of Interest is on the table.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Nor will there be an Ethics Commissioner sticking his unwelcome snout into the affairs of Cabinet, the PMO and the PCO now that Conflict of Interest is on the table.

His staff can still investigate/probe, though, according to this ...

...  all normal operations of the commissioner’s office will continue in Dion’s absence, including gathering information for any “ongoing investigations.” ...

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yes I read that too, but I doubt they will do very much without direction.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Yes I read that too, but I doubt they will do very much without direction.

Maybe, but if an investigation is under way, one would think they'd have their orders, at least in general terms, like if an ombudsman is out of commission.

 

[Rifleman62]

I saw one report the Ethics Commissioner is out for surgery and expects to be back shortly. You would think there was an Acting Ethics Commissioner who has all the authority/sign off ability.

Six Months to investigate.

https://twitter.com/l_stone/with_replies?lang=en

Laura StoneVerified account
@l_stone
Canadian politics, based at Queen’s Park in Toronto. I like to lunch. Find me @globeandmail; @YourMorning Tuesday am; former @ctvqp and @ctv_powerplay

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thanks for the update R62!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Something else that gets buried if he calls for a May election?