How Trudeau is winning my vote

[PIK]

You can have your own opinion, but you don't get your own facts. Almost all of the economic growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1% and even within that 1% the majority of their take went to the top 10% of that 1%. Harper has helped some very specific Canadians get richer, but has done nothing for the broader economy. In fact, he has made things worse and stifled recovery with his policies.

You have made the same mistake as trudeau and mulcair.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/23/william-watson-canadas-booming-middle-class-undermines-justin-trudeau/

Trudeau's middle class remarks just showed how out of touch he is.

[The_Squid]

Harper can sit down and talk shop with anybody, JT handlers will have to handle meetings with other leaders, JT has shown he knows squat when it comes to the world or economics.

Is that why Canada couldn't get a seat on the UN Security Council, or why Canada has had its influence in the world disappear since Harper has been in power?

Even our biggest trading partner now ignores pretty much everything that Canada does... Harper now just spouts chicken-hawk rhetoric like he did just before the Iraq war that, thankfully, a more level headed PM refused to get Canada involved in.

This is not a successful PM on the world stage. He's a dismal failure.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/foreign-affairs-experts-slam-stephen-harpers-153146423.html

How tiresome, how smug and — I will argue — how un-Canadian is the stolid simplicity of the Harper-Baird "we won’t go along to get along" mantra. But it is that arrogant me-first, ‘I’m all right, and to hell with you" posture coupled with extravagant insensitivity which destroyed Canada’s bid for a seventh term on the Security Council three years ago.

Until that changes, those attitudes will ensure that Canada is excluded from any important role within the community of nations.

Walter Dorn from the Canadian Military College about Canada’s peacekeeping role:

Is Canada the prolific peacekeeper it once was? Unfortunately, the answer is no. While Canada once contributed as many as 3,000 military personnel to peacekeeping, it currently provides only 34 – not enough to fill a school bus. While the United Nations currently (July 2014) deploys an all-time high of over 80,000 military personnel in the field, Canada has kept its numbers at historical lows since 2006.

[dre]

Harper can sit down and talk shop with anybody, JT handlers will have to handle meetings with other leaders, JT has shown he knows squat when it comes to the world or economics.

Like I said... you dont understand what leadership is. If elected government was about people being experts on economics, world affairs, or political science than prime ministers and presidents would all have PHD's after their names.

Leadership is about being able to articulate your ideas, bring people together and achieve goals, and surround yourself with people with knowledge and different perspectives on a broad array of issues, and tie all that together.

[Black Dog]

Like I said... you dont understand what leadership is. If elected government was about people being experts on economics, world affairs, or political science than prime ministers and presidents would all have PHD's after their names.

Leadership is about being able to articulate your ideas, bring people together and achieve goals, and surround yourself with people with knowledge and different perspectives on a broad array of issues, and tie all that together.

I thought leadership was all about obsessive control over messaging, valuing secrecy above all else, contempt for the people, opposition and the political process and a singular focus on self-promotion. These are things Harper taught me anyway.

[cybercoma]

I am talking about dealing with world leaders on world problems

Well the, I guess we have very different definitions of "anybody."

[PIK]

Like I said... you dont understand what leadership is. If elected government was about people being experts on economics, world affairs, or political science than prime ministers and presidents would all have PHD's after their names.

Leadership is about being able to articulate your ideas, bring people together and achieve goals, and surround yourself with people with knowledge and different perspectives on a broad array of issues, and tie all that together.

And you need a working brain , which trudeau certainly does not have. Being tough is also a good leadership quality, and not to be pushed around. And to have the balls to go against the majority is you believe in what you are doing, not just agreeing with what other people said. Like the north, harper wenats that for Canada , where trudeau has said ''what ever the experts say'' So right their shows a lack of leadership.

[Argus]

Tough to say. I think Mulcair has proven during Question Period to be a fantastic leader. He's very direct with his questions, which has embarrassed the executive branch. Please note that I didn't say the Conservatives because I believe it's up to the backbenchers to hold the executive accountable during Question Period as well. Really it's just the government. Mulcair has very clearly highlighted how terrible they are. The problem is that it's benefitting Trudeau. He needs to find a way to get people to vote for his party and I don't think there's anything the NDP can do to make that happen. People are just too stubborn and still believe that there's only 2 parties in this country.

I believe Mulcair is a tough, smart guy. But all the things people dislike about Harper are quite clearly present in Mulcair as well. Neither tolerates much opposition (no pun intended). Both run roughshod over their own caucus. Both are single-minded and focused and don't want to hear quibbles about their intentions. That being said, I could tolerate at least trying Mulcair if he was a Liberal. I don't trust the NDP, though. To me, they're still the party which cares primarily about minorities, gays, immigrants and the poor. Not saying that's a terrible thing, but I'm not in any of those groups. I heartily doubt they give a damn about me except as a wallet to draw on. And I think their environmental policies would do for Canada what Dalton McGuinty did for Ontario.

[Argus]

You can have your own opinion, but you don't get your own facts. Almost all of the economic growth since 2008 has gone to the top 1% and even within that 1% the majority of their take went to the top 10% of that 1%. Harper has helped some very specific Canadians get richer, but has done nothing for the broader economy. In fact, he has made things worse and stifled recovery with his policies.

How much of this should be laid at his door, though, as opposed to the incompetent regimes in Toronto and Quebec? If the two provinces representing 2/3rds of the people are running disastrous economic policies with high taxes, that's going to have a big effect on the national economy and jobs.

[cybercoma]

How much should be laid at his door. If he wants to claim responsibility over the economy, then take responsibility. What I don't think he gets to do is claim responsibility for the economy, then blame everything else under the sun when it doesn't go his way. Personally, I don't believe he has all that much control over the economy. We have a mostly free market still, right? But that's why I roll my eyes when he talks about what a responsible steward of the economy his party is. You don't get to play both sides of the coin.

[hitops]

I believe Mulcair is a tough, smart guy. But all the things people dislike about Harper are quite clearly present in Mulcair as well. Neither tolerates much opposition (no pun intended). Both run roughshod over their own caucus. Both are single-minded and focused and don't want to hear quibbles about their intentions. That being said, I could tolerate at least trying Mulcair if he was a Liberal. I don't trust the NDP, though. To me, they're still the party which cares primarily about minorities, gays, immigrants and the poor. Not saying that's a terrible thing, but I'm not in any of those groups. I heartily doubt they give a damn about me except as a wallet to draw on. And I think their environmental policies would do for Canada what Dalton McGuinty did for Ontario.

Agreed except about the caucus. Harper has permitted a more free caucus than any Canadian PM in recent history. The NDP a few months back were simultaneously complaining that he was

1) Acting like a tyrant controlling his MP's

2) Not controlling his MP's enough(private members bills, public statements etc)

They couldn't figure out how to be mad at Harper for not letting MP's speak and also for letting them speak (abortion bills, etc), at the same time

Edited September 30, 2014 by hitops

[cybercoma]

I don't know anyone that's mad at Harper for letting his MPs speak their mind about abortion bills, etc. It has to do with what they're saying and not that Harper is allowing or not allowing it.

[Argus]

Agreed except about the caucus. Harper has permitted a more free caucus than any Canadian PM in recent history.

I haven't seen any evidence that Harper's MPs have more freedom than Chretien's or Mulroney's MPs.

[dre]

How much should be laid at his door. If he wants to claim responsibility over the economy, then take responsibility. What I don't think he gets to do is claim responsibility for the economy, then blame everything else under the sun when it doesn't go his way. Personally, I don't believe he has all that much control over the economy. We have a mostly free market still, right? But that's why I roll my eyes when he talks about what a responsible steward of the economy his party is. You don't get to play both sides of the coin.

The reality is that both voters and governments greatly overestimate the governments role in an economy. Except in extreme cases the government is a bit player.

[Argus]

The reality is that both voters and governments greatly overestimate the governments role in an economy. Except in extreme cases the government is a bit player.

Of course, if it does something really stupid, like double or triple the price of electricity, that's going to have a substantial effect on the cost, and thus success, of energy intensive industries...

[overthere]

I haven't seen any evidence that Harper's MPs have more freedom than Chretien's or Mulroney's MPs.

check the voting records on same sex marriage, a classic 'vote of conscience' to determine who was whipped and who was not. Then get back to us on that.

[overthere]

The reality is that both voters and governments greatly overestimate the governments role in an economy. Except in extreme cases the government is a bit player.

Except for the regime of Trudeau The Elder, with his relentless and clueless intervention in many areas of the economy including wage/price controls, the NEP , discouraging foreign investment and so on.

[jbg]

Except for the regime of Trudeau The Elder, with his relentless and clueless intervention in many areas of the economy including wage/price controls, the NEP , discouraging foreign investment and so on.

That was an extreme case. On economics he was clueless.

And on wage/price controls he had it right the first time (certainly in light of the U.S.'s recent disastrous experience with controls) with the "zap-freeze" speech (link):

When Pierre Trudeau found himself in a tight re-election race in 1974, he seized on a brilliant, if dishonest, gambit to get the upper hand on Progressive-Conservative leader Robert Stanfield.Stanfield had proposed a freeze on prices and wages as a means of containing runaway inflation.

“Zap! You’re frozen!” Trudeau cried, ridiculing the notion that you could make prices stop rising by simply ordering them to. Stanfield looked foolish and Trudeau won his second majority. He then implemented a freeze much like the one Stanfield had advocated.

Edited September 30, 2014 by jbg

[overthere]

Extreme in what way?

Trudeau Sr was far more than a 'bit player' in the economy, so it is false to say govt always plays a small part in the economy.. He was the Prime Minster, and what he wanted happened whenever he had a majority govt. Exactly like today. Far different results though, wouldn't you agree?

For the record, Trudeau flip flopped a couple times on wage and price freezes, which caused big damage. By that I mean both the controls and the flip flopping caused mayhem in the markets, none of which bettered Canadians.

[jbg]

Extreme in what way?

In his destruction of Canada as a great nation. ISIS would be proud.

For the record, Trudeau flip flopped a couple times on wage and price freezes, which caused big damage. By that I mean both the controls and the flip flopping caused mayhem in the markets, none of which bettered Canadians.

Agreed.

[The_Squid]

check the voting records on same sex marriage, a classic 'vote of conscience' to determine who was whipped and who was not. Then get back to us on that.

Should they also be allowed to vote their conscience on whether women should vote too?

It's a matter of basic civil rights and any MP voting against it should be shown the door. They are on the wrong side of history on that one.

[Smallc]

So they should be whipped only on the issues that we disagree with them on. Now how do we define those?

[guyser]

In his destruction of Canada as a great nation. ISIS would be proud.

Agreed.

So sad to know this country is no longer great.

[overthere]

Should they also be allowed to vote their conscience on whether women should vote too?

It's a matter of basic civil rights and any MP voting against it should be shown the door. They are on the wrong side of history on that one.

Choose one and only one, just one vote per MP permitted: your conscience, the wishes of your constituents assuming they can be determined precisely, or whatever the Party tells you to do.

Remember, choose only one, no waffling.

[overthere]

oh, and no changing the goalposts to answer other issues.

[The_Squid]

Choose one and only one, just one vote per MP permitted: your conscience, the wishes of your constituents assuming they can be determined precisely, or whatever the Party tells you to do.

Remember, choose only one, no waffling.

On civil rights? I would make sure that the party that I am with is also on my side, otherwise I would quit the party. If the party decided that some members could vote against the civil rights of Canadians, I would no longer be a member.

Constituents be damned, if they don't want women to vote, or gays to be treated equally. Vote me out.