Only 2.5 months to go

 

Need to change it so next election they have to work into the summer. Too much time off.

 

I'd like to see more written about the cost of the NDP's promises. I'll give you two: National Day care and increasing foreign aid. They say day care will be 5 billion a year. Let's accept that for now. To increase foreign aid to .7% of GDP is another 9.3 billion. That is an increase of 14.3 billion in spending on only two promises. Where does that $ come from?

The scariest thing is that there many people out there who think it's perfectly OK to jack up taxes and send like crazy. Usually people who don't have any money of their own.

That much in foreign aid increase?????

Charity starts at home and there are tens of thousands right HERE who could be aided by that cash.

 

Im sort of wondering what type of person is attracted to the NDP.  I noticed a former co-worker posting on FB after the election announcement saying how we *must* get rid of Harper.  She probably makes $60,000-$70,000 a year.  Married.  So lets say household income is $120,000-$140,000.  Has 2-3 kids.  Why would she be attracted to the NDP?  Not being a parent I cant say for sure... but could it be the free child care?  Tax credits for having kids?  Fitting into that perfect demographic that would benefit the most?  While single people or wealthy (wealthier) people pay more?

Im sort of wondering what type of person is attracted to the NDP.  I noticed a former co-worker posting on FB after the election announcement saying how we *must* get rid of Harper.  She probably makes $60,000-$70,000 a year.  Married.  So lets say household income is $120,000-$140,000.  Has 2-3 kids.  Why would she be attracted to the NDP?  Not being a parent I cant say for sure... but could it be the free child care?  Tax credits for having kids?  Fitting into that perfect demographic that would benefit the most?  While single people or wealthy (wealthier) people pay more?

Or like a lot of people I know who post on FB, she is trying to appear hip and cool to the other moms in her social circle. It's always easy to say "get rid of Harper" when you don't care about how bad the alternatives are, just like its easy to say "we should be spending more on (insert basically anything here) but those Conservatives are such jerks" without worrying about the costs and how they will be paid for. Of course, if you do ask anybody how things will be paid for, it's simply "raise corporate taxes". Yup. It's sooooooo easy.

 

 

I'd like to see more written about the cost of the NDP's promises. I'll give you two: National Day care and increasing foreign aid. They say day care will be 5 billion a year. Let's accept that for now. To increase foreign aid to .7% of GDP is another 9.3 billion. That is an increase of 14.3 billion in spending on only two promises. Where does that $ come from?

The scariest thing is that there many people out there who think it's perfectly OK to jack up taxes and send like crazy. Usually people who don't have any money of their own.

That much in foreign aid increase?????

Charity starts at home and there are tens of thousands right HERE who could be aided by that cash.

 

Im sort of wondering what type of person is attracted to the NDP.  I noticed a former co-worker posting on FB after the election announcement saying how we *must* get rid of Harper.  She probably makes $60,000-$70,000 a year.  Married.  So lets say household income is $120,000-$140,000.  Has 2-3 kids.  Why would she be attracted to the NDP?  Not being a parent I cant say for sure... but could it be the free child care?  Tax credits for having kids?  Fitting into that perfect demographic that would benefit the most?  While single people or wealthy (wealthier) people pay more?

 

 

One of my good friends is very pro NDP to the point where he is seriously considering running in the next provincial election with the thought of getting his name out there and probably losing with all the bad press the party has gotten over the last few years, then making a second push with the hopes of getting elected in the following election.  He is very involved in his local constituency and does a lot of fund raising with them.

 

We've had some very interesting debates for sure as I am anything but NDP, landing somewhere between Liberal and Conservative.

 

To him, the NDP is about doing the greater good for the general population.  He is healthy, working at a decent job, and doesn't mind chipping in and paying more to give to and help those that can't help themselves.  Has nothing but good things to say about the people he meets and works with through the party, and can't understand why people wouldn't want to do those things.  Everyone is "working together for the greater good".  For him, it isn't at all about not working and not making your own way or taking advantage of the sysetm, it is about helping people and making things more equitable.

 

I don't know if he doesn't believe in the people who end up taking advantage of the system when NDP policies are put into place, or takes it as a cost for the greater good, but I will give him credit for his utopian idealism, even though there is no way it ever works out that way in the end.

^^^^just another example of a well-intentioned-bleeding heart-person with no real grasp of reality.

That's all nice and feel good, 'for the greater good' is a scary thought. That's a slogan used by evil to justify evil.

nothing beats hard work and taking care of your own business. Help people yes, but teach them to fish. If they choose to not, we'll, you can't make them. And that's their choice.

I love Canada and we should have a social safety net. But it gets abused. I'm not sure my former co-worker making well over a hundred grand should get cheap free child care at the expense of me paying higher taxes.

People are angry about easing old age pension to 67. My circle of friends would love money earlier. But we understand and we accept that we have a greater knowledge and tools to save. We understand life spans are longer. We accept it.

On OAS. I think people confuse it with CPP. CPP, you pay into. OAS is from general revenue. With people living longer is making people wait until 67 so bad? Not in my opinion. You can still collect your CPP before. You may have a pension. You, hopefully have savings.

 

Child care is interesting. Know who benefits the most from Quebec's program? The wealthy. I don't want to fund childcare for couples making over $100,000 but would have too.

I think NDP hardcore's simply just want to jump on the bandwagon and be different.

They usually provide no reason for why they like the NDP and just kick and scream if your opinion differs.

I don't want to pile on but last election the anti-Harper crowd acted like no one wanted Harper and that the left was the rightful government. Then he won. Again. I find the conservatives are generally quieter about their positions.

On OAS. I think people confuse it with CPP. CPP, you pay into. OAS is from general revenue. With people living longer is making people wait until 67 so bad? Not in my opinion. You can still collect your CPP before. You may have a pension. You, hopefully have savings.

 

Child care is interesting. Know who benefits the most from Quebec's program? The wealthy. I don't want to fund childcare for couples making over $100,000 but would have too.

 

The subsidized child care program has been a complete bust in Quebec.  First, all of the daycares unionized, and implemented rigid working hours, meaning that they weren't even open during periods when less financially advantaged people had to work, like shift labour, so only people with day jobs could take advantage, which tended to be the more wealthy.  And then of course, the costs were far greater than even the most conservative estimates.  Mulcair says that his plan will cost $5 billion per annum.  Better double that, just as a start.  $10 billion a year - that's a huge pill to swallow.

 

There can only be one reason that Mulcair is pushing for subsidized daycare and that's because he's been told by the HEU and big labour to do it, because it will create thousands of new unionized jobs.  It's not about the greater good for all, it's about the greater good for the unions, and that's why (one of the reasons) I can't stand the NDP.

I don't know how much stock to put in polls, but if the election were held right now, some pollsters are saying we'd have a minority NDP government.  That would be favorable to a majority NDP government, I guess....

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-ndp-lead-widens-slightly-over-conservatives-1.3178079

The childcare issue should be provincial IMO, part of the education system, easiest way to handle it without creating an entirely separate bureaucracy.  Most existing schools either have a child care facility and room to expand or room to hold a child care facility.  All new K-8 schools in Manitoba must have space for a child care facility.  

 

It's a problem that needs to be dealt with though and really something that becomes an economic issue.  Might suck to have to pay for it if you're not using it, similar to school taxes, but it's getting to a point where the service available is inadequate and ridiculously expensive, potentially keeping skilled workers out of the labour market for years.  One of my best friends and his wife pay $1500 a month for childcare for 2 kids!  I know there are some subsidies, but I couldn't imagine how a family with two incomes making say $50,000 a year total pre-tax absorbs that.  Generally people with children of that age are nowhere near their peak earnings either.  I guess once we're all working at Home Depot and Wal-Mart we'll figure it out.

 

On OAS. I think people confuse it with CPP. CPP, you pay into. OAS is from general revenue. With people living longer is making people wait until 67 so bad? Not in my opinion. You can still collect your CPP before. You may have a pension. You, hopefully have savings.

 

Child care is interesting. Know who benefits the most from Quebec's program? The wealthy. I don't want to fund childcare for couples making over $100,000 but would have too.

 

The subsidized child care program has been a complete bust in Quebec.  First, all of the daycares unionized, and implemented rigid working hours, meaning that they weren't even open during periods when less financially advantaged people had to work, like shift labour, so only people with day jobs could take advantage, which tended to be the more wealthy.  And then of course, the costs were far greater than even the most conservative estimates.  Mulcair says that his plan will cost $5 billion per annum.  Better double that, just as a start.  $10 billion a year - that's a huge pill to swallow.

 

There can only be one reason that Mulcair is pushing for subsidized daycare and that's because he's been told by the HEU and big labour to do it, because it will create thousands of new unionized jobs.  It's not about the greater good for all, it's about the greater good for the unions, and that's why (one of the reasons) I can't stand the NDP.

 

 

I guess it really depends on how the childcare system would work.  Is there still a user fee or are we all just going to pay into it?  Will there be spots for all children who require it?

 

I don't know much about other provinces, but anyone at a licensed daycare in Manitoba is paying between $500-$700 per month for a pre-school aged child and $400-$500 for a school-aged child.

 

Let's say that there are 5 million kids in Canada that need daycare and it's about $500 per kid/month right now, relatively conservative estimate given the cost of living on the West Coast and Southern Ontario.  That's $30,000,000,000 (billion) that parents are paying out right now.  Even if it cost $10 billion a year to have a national system you're putting a lot of money into the economy through the wallets of those parents and potentially allowing others who don't currently have their children in daycare to work outside the home if there are more affordable spots available.

 

This kind of stuff is pretty low on my list in terms of wasteful spending done by governments.

Do you want to subsidize those making over $100,000 combined for their daycare, especially when they own cabins and/or take trips each year? I don't. A single Mom working shifts and making $30,000, sure.

Do you want to subsidize those making over $100,000 combined for their daycare, especially when they own cabins and/or take trips each year? I don't. A single Mom working shifts and making $30,000, sure.

 

If it's going to cost in the same ballpark just to have the subsidies for lower income families, I'd rather have a universal system.  The problem of lack of available service is just as bad as the cost of it right now.  Generally the more people make the more tax they pay, another thing the next government needs to address as it's been clawed at by the Cons a bit, so they will carry a heavier burden in terms of paying for services.  The single mom making $30,000 is not going to pay much in the way of federal taxes that she won't see back in tax benefits, so really those people with kids making more money will be subsidizing her family.  $100,000 combined is not all that much anymore either.

I don't know how much stock to put in polls, but if the election were held right now, some pollsters are saying we'd have a minority NDP government. That would be favorable to a majority NDP government, I guess....

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-tracker-ndp-lead-widens-slightly-over-conservatives-1.3178079

My concern would be Harper would retire and a less tightly tun party loses a majority to the NDP.

My prediction this far out is actually a minority Cons government.

That poll puts the NDP within 10 seats of a majority, that is scary (see Ontario/Manitoba/BC).

That poll puts the NDP within 10 seats of a majority, that is scary (see Ontario/Manitoba/BC).

 

Yeah it's easy to tell a pollster you are voting NDP, but then it's a whole different thing to step into that voting booth and think really?  I am going to unleash that circus of clowns on the economy?

It's still early. Didn't the Conservatives poll ahead early in the election before they won? The early favourable polls for the NDP might be a by product of people who want change. But those people have to vote. And if they were formed Cons they have to change their mind

I suspect some Disillusioned Cons are considering NDP. But when push comes to shove who knows. Plus if Justin can make any headway he might pull some lefties towards the centre and split that vote.

Former Conservatives are unlikley to vote NDP but they sure might vote for Trudeau to help get rid of Harper.

Former Conservatives are unlikley to vote NDP but they sure might vote for Trudeau to help get rid of Harper.

Well you'd think that. But I think many Canadians understand the wasted vote thing and will choose the party with the best chance of winning. If a conservative voter wants to vote for someone else I think the NDP right now are more viable and sensible seeming.

Nanos Power Party index out today.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nanos-on-the-numbers/ndp-numbers-plateau-as-conservatives-have-strong-july-nanos-1.2502214

 

NDP: 55 points

Cons: 53 Points

Liberals: 50 points

 

pollster Nik Nanos spoke of recent polling results and said: “What’s interesting is that the direction now is starting to favour the Conservatives, while the NDP and the Liberal tracking numbers are starting to look a little flat – flatter than they have been in the past.

 

Nanos described the index as a sort of “advanced indicator” that reflects some of the underlying opinions that influence voter behaviour. Though the index isn’t a direct measurement of which party voters are leaning towards, Nanos said an index upswing could soon translate into increased support for Harper’s party.

 

Harper has also climbed significantly in the individual leader categories, according to this week’s Nanos survey. The latest numbers show 31 per cent of those polled would prefer Harper as prime minister, compared to 28 per cent for Mulcair and 22 per cent for Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

 

 

Obviously early but interesting.  Is this an indication that when its "for real" people who considered voting NDP swing back to the "safe" vote?  Or just the power of the governing party?  I would have thought with the media coverage being negative on the Cons and positive on NDP that the reverse of this would be true, with the NDP climbing early.

 

Its also interesting that people continue to see Harper as the best person for the job among the leaders.  This really flies in the face of the Anti-Harper crowd.  It makes me wonder if the "Stop Harper" movement is ill-advised.  Might be better to attack actual issues rather than a popular leader that is seen by the most people to be the best person for the gig.

 

And what the heck happened to the Liberals?  It actually warms my heart a bit that people want more in their politicians then "young, good looking, nice hair, rock star".  The Libs might have to do a 180 as this progresses if something doesnt change.  They've branded their party "Justin" more so than the liberal party.  Might have to change that.

Liberals should have picked Garneau.

That poll puts the NDP within 10 seats of a majority, that is scary (see Ontario/Manitoba/BC).

Are Canadians that blind?

I hope Quebec wakes up and saves us......

ugh. ....I feel sick.......

 

That poll puts the NDP within 10 seats of a majority, that is scary (see Ontario/Manitoba/BC).

Are Canadians that blind?

I hope Quebec wakes up and saves us......

ugh. ....I feel sick.......

 

By turning to the Cons or by NDP voters voting BQ?

 

I cant imagine the NDP do as well in Quebec this time...

 

The thing about Mulcair is, he has been considered the potential weak link because he's prone to outbursts and coming across like an angry guy.  His decision not to take questions caused backlash.  He then did take questions and was well prepared in how he focused on the Cons and wouldnt even say Justin's name (amusingly it became a story when Harper kept calling him "Justin" rather than "Justin Trudeau"...).  It will be interesting to see how Mulcair performs as the election wears on.

 

As much as I like Harper, he can be his own worst enemy too.  I think when he speaks and interacts, he comes across very likeable.  But he seems to be so private or determined to not be caught "relaxing" that those moments are few and far between.  I think Harper himself is the best tool against the "Stop Harper" crowd because he really does seem like a likeable person.

Nanos Power Party index out today.

 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nanos-on-the-numbers/ndp-numbers-plateau-as-conservatives-have-strong-july-nanos-1.2502214

 

NDP: 55 points

Cons: 53 Points

Liberals: 50 points

 

pollster Nik Nanos spoke of recent polling results and said: “What’s interesting is that the direction now is starting to favour the Conservatives, while the NDP and the Liberal tracking numbers are starting to look a little flat – flatter than they have been in the past.

 

Nanos described the index as a sort of “advanced indicator” that reflects some of the underlying opinions that influence voter behaviour. Though the index isn’t a direct measurement of which party voters are leaning towards, Nanos said an index upswing could soon translate into increased support for Harper’s party.

 

Harper has also climbed significantly in the individual leader categories, according to this week’s Nanos survey. The latest numbers show 31 per cent of those polled would prefer Harper as prime minister, compared to 28 per cent for Mulcair and 22 per cent for Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

 

 

Obviously early but interesting.  Is this an indication that when its "for real" people who considered voting NDP swing back to the "safe" vote?  Or just the power of the governing party?  I would have thought with the media coverage being negative on the Cons and positive on NDP that the reverse of this would be true, with the NDP climbing early.

 

Its also interesting that people continue to see Harper as the best person for the job among the leaders.  This really flies in the face of the Anti-Harper crowd.  It makes me wonder if the "Stop Harper" movement is ill-advised.  Might be better to attack actual issues rather than a popular leader that is seen by the most people to be the best person for the gig.

 

And what the heck happened to the Liberals?  It actually warms my heart a bit that people want more in their politicians then "young, good looking, nice hair, rock star".  The Libs might have to do a 180 as this progresses if something doesnt change.  They've branded their party "Justin" more so than the liberal party.  Might have to change that.

 

Backlash from left leaning voters for the Liberal support of C-51.