Mulcair's Failure: Wedge Politics

waldo · December 10, 2015

There was a valid reason for launching an early election call.

yes indeedee there was... to put distance between the Duffy trial and the latter part of the election campaign! Yes indeedee! Now that the trial is back on again, now that Duffy is 'on the stand' and testifying on his own behalf... the true hand of that brute Harper in 'l'affaire Duffy' is being revealed! :lol:

.

On Guard for Thee · December 10, 2015

There was a valid reason for launching an early election call.

Recall that prior to the election call, 3rd party organizations were allowed to spend relatively large amounts of money (outside of the limits placed on political parties.) One such organization was a Union-backed organization run by Liberals and NDPers. Once the election was called, the ability of 3rd parties to spend money got significantly cut back.

From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-conservative-tv-ad-all-about-timing-1.3122069

One ad that made its debut this month comes from Engage Canada, a group whose stated intent is to make the Conservative party "unelectable." Engage calls itself a non-partisan, grassroots organization, though is headed by former Liberal and NDP strategists and it counts unions among its donors.

Ironic, isn't it... the conservatives get slammed (quite rightly in some cases) for some shady advertising, and yet here we have the left-wing engaging in the type of questionable practices that would be more at home in the U.S. (with its super PACS.)

I suspect as far as the money issue goes, the cpc simply were well aware they had a much larger bank account than their 2 main competitors combined, and that they could just spend their way back into power. I don't think they were aware of just how fed up the country was with them, and they also didn't expect Trudeau to do so well in the debates..

Topaz · December 10, 2015

It would be interesting to see the return of the federal PC party and what the former Alliance members would do and how far they would get as a federal party.....not very far, I bet.

segnosaur · December 10, 2015

Recall that prior to the election call, 3rd party organizations were allowed to spend relatively large amounts of money (outside of the limits placed on political parties.) One such organization was a Union-backed organization run by Liberals and NDPers.

I suspect as far as the money issue goes, the cpc simply were well aware they had a much larger bank account than their 2 main competitors combined, and that they could just spend their way back into power.

You're missing the point...

The purpose of Canada's election finance laws is to prevent any particular group from "buying" the election. So, individuals, companies and organizations are prevented from donating more than $1500 in a year.

The conservatives probably did have more money than the other 2 parties (based on many small contributions). The problem is, 3rd party organizations (like the previously mentioned Engage Canda) are able to raise and spend money outside of the constraints of the major parties. And that's what happened... Engage Canada collected more money from unions that the unions would have been able to donate directly to any political party. (There were a couple of attempts to set up pro-conservative organizations, but they had nowhere near the impact as the pro-Liberal organizations.)

Now, such 3rd party organizations are prevented from supporting a particular party, but there is nothing keeping them from running ads bashing one party (as long as they don't tell you who you should vote for). And they may not be able to directly work with a particular party, but in the case of Engage Canada, many of the organizers had links to the NDP and Liberals.

Its dirty politics. But quite legal.

And that's one of the reasons why Harper may have called the election early... rather than listen to an extra month of "Bash the conservative" ads (paid for by forced union dues and organized by Liberals and NDPers) they called the election early.

If you want to know the impact, try looking at the U.S. The impact of their SuperPACs is often the target of scorn (viewed as anti-democratic). But here, the Liberals and NDP greatly benefited by the same type of spending.

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2015

If you want to know the impact, try looking at the U.S. The impact of their SuperPACs is often the target of scorn (viewed as anti-democratic).

Of course...the U.S. defines such things even for a Canadian context. It has always been thus....

Hudson Jones · December 10, 2015

I bet Harper is even more surprised at how bad he played his hand

You mean relying on not enough people showing up to vote, vote splitting and on the guaranteed 30% who are easily moved by the trigger words (economy, terrorism, burka).

Are they still going to name the airport after him?

Hudson Jones · December 10, 2015

Absolutely not. Their vitriol against him started before he was even chosen as party leader.

The whole victim card thing is SO overplayed. Harper stopped taking questions from the media. He muzzled his own party members and even scientists. Try to break away from being another predictable Harper supporter.

Here is the media going against Harper the day before the election:

eyeball · December 11, 2015

To be fair, Trudeau has run from the media before (Sun News).

Was this more a case of simply ignoring the Sun? To be fair, so do a lot of people.

On Guard for Thee · December 11, 2015

You mean relying on not enough people showing up to vote, vote splitting and on the guaranteed 30% who are easily moved by the trigger words (economy, terrorism, burka).

Are they still going to name the airport after him?

I'd forgotten about the airport. I suspect most others have as well.

On Guard for Thee · December 11, 2015

You're missing the point...

The purpose of Canada's election finance laws is to prevent any particular group from "buying" the election. So, individuals, companies and organizations are prevented from donating more than $1500 in a year.

The conservatives probably did have more money than the other 2 parties (based on many small contributions). The problem is, 3rd party organizations (like the previously mentioned Engage Canda) are able to raise and spend money outside of the constraints of the major parties. And that's what happened... Engage Canada collected more money from unions that the unions would have been able to donate directly to any political party. (There were a couple of attempts to set up pro-conservative organizations, but they had nowhere near the impact as the pro-Liberal organizations.)

Now, such 3rd party organizations are prevented from supporting a particular party, but there is nothing keeping them from running ads bashing one party (as long as they don't tell you who you should vote for). And they may not be able to directly work with a particular party, but in the case of Engage Canada, many of the organizers had links to the NDP and Liberals.

Its dirty politics. But quite legal.

And that's one of the reasons why Harper may have called the election early... rather than listen to an extra month of "Bash the conservative" ads (paid for by forced union dues and organized by Liberals and NDPers) they called the election early.

If you want to know the impact, try looking at the U.S. The impact of their SuperPACs is often the target of scorn (viewed as anti-democratic). But here, the Liberals and NDP greatly benefited by the same type of spending.

The point you are missing is that those laws don't kick in until the writ is dropped. So the campaign actually started before that. And, if you have a lengthy campaign you can hope to drain the coffers of the competition who you know have less to spend.

On Guard for Thee · December 11, 2015

Of course...the U.S. defines such things even for a Canadian context. It has always been thus....

Yep, elections have been up for sale in the US for a long time now. Democracy to the highest bidder.

segnosaur · December 11, 2015

The purpose of Canada's election finance laws is to prevent any particular group from "buying" the election. So, individuals, companies and organizations are prevented from donating more than $1500 in a year.
The conservatives probably did have more money than the other 2 parties (based on many small contributions). The problem is, 3rd party organizations (like the previously mentioned Engage Canda) are able to raise and spend money outside of the constraints of the major parties. And that's what happened... Engage Canada collected more money from unions that the unions would have been able to donate directly to any political party.

The point you are missing is that those laws don't kick in until the writ is dropped. So the campaign actually started before that. And, if you have a lengthy campaign you can hope to drain the coffers of the competition who you know have less to spend.

Actually, finance laws dictating how much a person or organization can donate to political parties are always in effect. So someone cannot donate millions per year for 3 years and then stop right before the election call. They can only donate $1500/year, whether it is during the election itself, or in the middle of the term.

However, there is no law preventing someone (or in this case unions) from donating millions to an anti-conservative organization, year after year, and have them publish anti-conservative ads for years at a time..

Now, when the election is actually called, those 3rd parties are limited in their ability to spend.

And that is probably one of the key reasons Harper called the election early. To silence 3rd party organizations like Engage Canada, who were collecting money in ways that regular political parties could not.

Edited December 11, 2015 by segnosaur

On Guard for Thee · December 11, 2015

And that is probably one of the key reasons Harper called the election early. To silence 3rd party organizations like Engage Canada, who were collecting money in ways that regular political parties could not.

Whatever your opinion as to why he called it so early, there is no doubt if backfired big time on him.

segnosaur · December 11, 2015

Whatever your opinion as to why he called it so early, there is no doubt if backfired big time on him.

"Backfiring" suggests that there was an option that would have lead to greater success (either winning the election or at least gaining more seats.) Since the conservatives were an incumbent party, with all the various issues (scandals, past policies that many voters did not like, etc.) there was a good chance that they were going to loose anyways.

What isn't known is whether they would have gotten more or less seats had they called the election later. Yes, they ran the risk of turning off voters with a long campaign, but they curtailed 3rd party union-backed ads, which themselves might have been damaging if they had been allowed to run unfettered for an additional month before the election call.

On Guard for Thee · December 11, 2015

"Backfiring" suggests that there was an option that would have lead to greater success (either winning the election or at least gaining more seats.) Since the conservatives were an incumbent party, with all the various issues (scandals, past policies that many voters did not like, etc.) there was a good chance that they were going to loose anyways.

What isn't known is whether they would have gotten more or less seats had they called the election later. Yes, they ran the risk of turning off voters with a long campaign, but they curtailed 3rd party union-backed ads, which themselves might have been damaging if they had been allowed to run unfettered for an additional month before the election call.

I think Canadians were so fed up with issues you mentioned that they were bound to be tossed out regardless of when they dropped the writ.

August1991 · December 20, 2015

There was a valid reason for launching an early election call.

"Early" election call? It wasn't an early election.

The election date was decided by legislation. On a critical point for a politician, Harper did not exercise arbitrary power.

======

I suspect that our new PM (under advice from people in the PMO) will choose to exercise his discretionary power differently. Within a few weeks of his election, we have already seen evidence of this.

On Guard for Thee · December 20, 2015

"Early" election call? It wasn't an early election.

The election date was decided by legislation. On a critical point for a politician, Harper did not exercise arbitrary power.

======

I suspect that our new PM (under advice from people in the PMO) will choose to exercise his discretionary power differently. Within a few weeks of his election, we have already seen evidence of this.

It certainly was a early election call. One of the longest campaigns in our history. He thought the party's bank account would work the magic, but he had just pissed off too many people and so it backfired.

August1991 · December 22, 2015

It certainly was a early election call. One of the longest campaigns in our history. He thought the party's bank account would work the magic, but he had just pissed off too many people and so it backfired.

Early? It was decided 4 years before. The date of the election was decided by legislation.

Dishonest Harper? Let's see how this Trudeau Jnr (for a politician) chooses his re-election date.

====

Democracy? I have a simple definition: Does the guy give up State power peacefully, without death, to someone else who he despises.

John Adams and Stephen Harper: true democrats.

Edited December 22, 2015 by August1991

On Guard for Thee · December 22, 2015

Early? It was decided 4 years before. The date of the election was decided by legislation.

Dishonest Harper? Let's see how this Trudeau Jnr (for a politician) chooses his re-election date.

Legislation which Harper put in effect, and then ignored. You ca get away with that when you are PM it seems.

waldo · December 22, 2015

Early? It was decided 4 years before. The date of the election was decided by legislation.

yes... an early election campaign start per Harper's presumptive attempt to bury the "the Duffy affair" during the latter part of the campaign, to attempt to bust the available funding of the Opposition parties, and to put an early end to 3rd party advertising. The traditional 37 day campaign was extended, by Harper, to a 79 day campaign... estimated cost to the Canadian taxpayer was an additional $125 million.

.

August1991 · December 22, 2015

Legislation which Harper put in effect, and then ignored. You ca get away with that when you are PM it seems.

Harper didn't ignore it. He respected it.

On Guard for Thee · December 22, 2015

Harper didn't ignore it. He respected it.

No he did not.

http://www.24news.ca/the-news/canada-news/85572-andrew-coyne-stephen-harper-ignores-fixed-election-date-law-and-no-one-seems-to-care

August1991 · December 23, 2015

No he did not.

http://www.24news.ca/the-news/canada-news/85572-andrew-coyne-stephen-harper-ignores-fixed-election-date-law-and-no-one-seems-to-care

Not?

Andrew Coyne wrote in January 2015 this:

What’s interesting about all this election speculation, pointless as it is, is the underlying premise: that the date of the next election is in fact open to question. By law, that is not supposed to be the case. By law — An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2007, c. 10 — the next election date is set in stone: October 19, 2015. So the real, unspoken premise is this: that the prime minister does not feel bound to follow the law — his own law, as it happens.

As linked by you above.

Well, "Heave Steve" seems to have kept his promise. We had an election on 19 October 2015.

But this new guy, Justin, has a different view of politics.

Edited December 23, 2015 by August1991

On Guard for Thee · December 23, 2015

Not?

Andrew Coyne wrote in January 2015 this:

As linked by you above.

Well, "Heave Steve" seems to have kept his promise. We had an election on 19 October 2015.

But this new guy, Justin, has a different view of politics.

Um, just to be clear, my point is he didn't keep his own promise. But then there was his promise about open and transparent government, and we all know how quickly and to such an extreme extent he backpedaled on that one as well. Lets hope Justin does have a different view. So far it does seem like a breath of fresh air.

August1991 · December 23, 2015

Um, just to be clear, my point is he didn't keep his own promise. But then there was his promise about open and transparent government, and we all know how quickly and to such an extreme extent he backpedaled on that one as well. Lets hope Justin does have a different view. So far it does seem like a breath of fresh air.

I largely agree with you, On Guard.

Rather than trying to choose good politicians, maybe we should encourage/reward politicians who are honest.

=====

Once upon a time, we had a PM who promised to cut the GST and promised to hold a re-election on a specific date.

Edited December 23, 2015 by August1991