you can bet that he'll sit on it, and the truth is that there's really not another option. mulcair can't vote for a deficit liberal budget, not after the stink he's made about it. you'll see the cons & ndp gang up at the first opportunity to nail the liberals on running a deficit, and we'll have an election over the first budget.

it's less that the platforms are dramatically different and more that they differ almost precisely on confidence issues.

what the governor-general needs to determine is who can get the confidence of the house. right now, nobody is going to get the confidence of the house. people need to get it into their head that a coalition cannot happen, and the media needs to stop confusing people.

the obvious comparison is clark. but, i think one might want to look at the mess in belgium a few years ago, where they went an extended period without a government. if the race doesn't break, that's what we're looking at.

right now, there's three options.

1) conservative majority
2) liberal majority
3) prorogue parliament for several months, and then call another election.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/election-2015-what-happens-if-none-of-the-parties-wins-a-majority-1.3261037

keithwilli
thats idiotic
4) a liberal & NDP minority that works together and rids us of Harper and perhaps makes a semi honest government

jessica murray
so, how are they going to run a deficit and balance the budget at the same time, exactly?

the idiot here is mulcair. he's boxed himself into a corner, and made the option impossible. i hope that there is a leadership review in the ndp very soon.

keithwilli
lol the same way every single other government has .
show me a federal government that has had a balanced budget

jessica murray
that isn't the point. mulcair can hardly spend the whole campaign yelling and screaming that he's going to balance the budget and "not even consider it a possibility" to run a deficit, and then vote for a liberal budget that purposefully is running a deficit. he'd might as well just got a tattoo on his forehead that says "what i say is meaningless".

for a coalition to work, mulcair would be required to step down immediately. that's not likely.

as stated: a liberal budget would be unable to pass in a minority government because the ndp would vote against it on grounds of fiscal conservatism.

a coalition is impossible. deal with it.

keithwilli
isnt the point?
your spouting about how they wont balance the budget when NONE do.
thats exactly the point now isnt it.
i think it should be law any party that wins has 45 days to bring in every change they promoted and if they fail then they are kicked out and the next on votes takes over.
they are all liars just which do we pick?
wont be Harper

we shall see.
i can 100% assure you justin wont get a majority.
he is most unlikely to even achieve a minority

jessica murray
ok. you may perhaps be unclear on the policies, although i've stated them.

- the liberals are promising to run a deficit. that is, they are promising to NOT balance the budget.
- the ndp are promising to balance the budget.

if the liberals win a minority, do you really believe that mulcair will open his mouth and swallow his leg? and, if he does so, do you expect him to be wearing a clown suit and be doing a jig at the same time?

he cannot and will not do that. and, the governor-general can consequently not conclude that the liberals can gain the confidence of the house.

at this point right now, the only way that anybody is going to be able to gain the confidence of the house is with a majority. and, there is no use in anybody trying to govern.

i have a hard time putting together the math that gives justin a majority as well, but if you want to get rid of harper then that's your only option - either this time around, or in the next election six months from now.

keithwilli
you seem to think you know it all and we shall see in 2 weeks wont we

jessica murray
i've got a crystal ball over in the corner, but i'm not jiving anybody with any cosmik debris. however, the flat reality is that it would be a tremendous act of political self-sacrifice on mulcair's behalf, and it strains credulity to suggest it's on the table.

keithwilli
well if they wont work together i fear we are doomed with another term from mr Harper.

i dont see a majority but i cant see him losing a minority

but i didnt honestly see the NDP winning in Alberta.
i think too many voted to have a strong opposition and it went over the top

jessica murray
i think there's an off chance that the ndp support in quebec could fall apart to the liberals' benefit. and, if it doesn't happen this election, i think quebeckers are politically savvy enough to make sure it happens in six months.

harper's going to be sitting and waiting for ontario to swing. i don't think that happens, either.

but, he can't support the purposeful deficit spending, not after his campaign's focus. and, don't expect him to.

the alberta ndp really benefited strongly from pc/wildrose splits.

William Hughes
I disagree. Mulcair has many options. e.g.

The people have spoken, Reluctantly I...

A bit of creative accounting. No deficit is predicted

This is not good, but an immediate election, that would probably solve nothing would be ever worse.

Reluctantly I ...

jessica murray
listen.

they put the options down on the table.

if you want deficit spending to kickstart the economy, you vote for the liberals; this is their plan, and they've been clear as day about it. if you're more concerned about ensuring that the budget is balanced, and want corporate tax boosts, then you vote for the ndp. they've been clear that this is their plan, as well.

i don't know what else they can do. they've posted platforms. they've run events. they've made it clear that they're not the same party - that they have different priorities and will behave differently in office. but, nobody is listening to what they're saying.

what do you want? figure it out and vote accordingly. don't vote for the guy saying he's going to balance the budget and expect him to run a deficit, or vote for the guy saying corporate tax increases are off the table and expect him to bend on it.

it's some kind of magical thinking, some kind of idea that the political spectrum will be what you imagine you'd like it to be, rather than what the facts in the platform tell you it is. and, this is normal, unfortunately. it somehow led to the anti-war movement voting for obama, for example, while he was explicitly campaigning on blowing up pakistan. and, then everybody scratched their heads and wondered how that happened.

again: the policy positions are on the table. they're clear. read them. decide which you prefer.

do not make things up in your head, and hope the parties can read your mind and create your fantasies.

off the post
Great. Please explain why the NDP helped kill the Kelowna Accord.

jessica murray
the ndp learned in the 70s that propping up the liberals doesn't get them anywhere, because the liberals just end up getting credit for ndp ideas. so, they changed tactics. what they were hoping was that putting the conservatives in power would allow them to wipe the slate clean and present themselves as an alternative to the conservatives.

the ndp will never win an election with the liberals in power and they know that. their only chance is to ensure that they're running against the conservatives. and, the fact is that this tactic nearly worked.

we saw the same thing in the last ontario election, but we got a different response because vast swaths of the electorate seemed to clue in to the tactic.

but, it was a step into the void for the ndp. it was at that moment that they ceased being the conscience of the nation and became just another cynical political party that's willing to do anything to gain power.

if the ndp were the party of principled ideas that they were in the past, we wouldn't be having this discussion. but, that's ancient history, now. today, the ndp's primary strategic goal is to prevent the liberals from forming a government, because they understand that they cannot win an election under the circumstances that the liberals are in power. huge swaths of voters will vote liberal to prevent the conservatives from winning. the ndp have to be fighting against the conservatives to have a serious chance of winning.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-indigenous-health-education-1.3260438

this ought to be a non-issue. we're talking about drinking water, here.

and, before people start talking about costs, ask yourself the following question: how much do you think reparations would cost? i'll give you a guess: it's measured in trillions. a few billions for fundamental infrastructure is a bargain. it's quite literally the least we can do.

the liberals and ndp are on the same page here. it should be a consensus issue. the bigger question is why the conservatives aren't.

EvenKeel
How do you know that many FN have not already been given billions to cover the cost of this, but just chose not to use it for providing good water to their people.

jessica murray
well, that's an empirical question. you have the burden of proof, as you made the claim. go for it.

the liberals can win outright in the gta and montreal, and it might hold him to a minority, but they're going to need a little help on the split to actually win. under normal circumstances, that would seem impossible, but there's a new factor, now, that could help them on the split.

...the tpp. mulcair is not likely to win these seats. but, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a tory--->ndp swing in some areas as a reaction to supply management could elect some liberals. i don't expect any of the models to pick that up. and, i would expect that the polling in these regions is fairly low - partly because nobody expects anybody but the tories to win. but, it's a serious wildcard. it's not going to sweep the province like chretien managed to on the reform-tory split, but it could produce the odd upset. there's a number of these rural ridings where the liberals can often get over 30%. these are in a ring around the gta. like bay of quinte, or haldimand-norfolk. these should be monitored closely for upticks in ndp support.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-toronto-oct6-1.3259332

an interesting fact...

when 65 was introduced as the retirement age, it was also the average life expectancy. so, if you think 67 is bad, keep in mind that if the original logic of retirement held, it would be increased to 82.

that says a lot about the medical advancements we've achieved since then, though, doesn't it?

as a younger person, i want to chime in that we need to find creative ways to cut costs while maintaining proper levels of services, merely than just throw money at it. i don't want to sound bitter, but the baby boomers have not, broadly, made the kind of compromises that their parents or grandparents made. they were and remain the 'me' generation. they're going to demand anything and everything; and i've personally had a hard time explaining the economics of the situation to the older people that i know. how wages have not kept up with inflation, for example. they don't get it.

we're not going to get to an answer by taxing much less wealthy young people to pay costs for far more wealthy older people. i don't want to become a wage slave to the health care system, and watch the economy collapse under high tax rates to install jacuzzis into old folks home. rather, i might suggest that, because they have all the wealth, and they've sat on it, and they won't pass it down, it's going to fall to they themselves to fund the bulk of the costs. government's role needs to be to direct the boomer's own wealth into their own care arrangements, rather than pass the costs down. they haven't passed their wealth down.

and, understand that i'm presenting this in rational and reasonable terms. the angry twenty-something that's living under a bridge, squeezed between student loan payments and old folks taxes in a stagnant economy, is not going to be so clear-headed.

i think it's important that the system do what is required to adjust. the values of the canada health act are important to me.

but, i think it's equally important that the economic reality be approached head-on, and that the burden of this demographic problem not fall squarely on the laps of younger people, who are already facing decreased opportunities and higher debt loads, due largely to the decisions that the boomers made.

creative ways to reduce costs would include things like home care, low-rent retirement homes and perhaps more specialized elderly care operations, that take the issues out of the primary care stream. the parties have come up with some alright ideas already. i'm not an expert, here; my suggestions are of limited value. studying the issue would be a good idea.

but, a very bad approach is to expect young people to simply carry the tax burden. the outcome of such an approach will create serious economic and social problems. it's a non-starter.

i would support an "elderly health tax" that is something like a tobin tax. but the main thrust of thought needs to be to find ways to channel the boomers' own wealth into their own health care costs.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-ndp-health-plan-demographic-bomb-1.3259569

you see this narrative jump up from time to time: this idea that the problem with capitalism is that it is not really capitalism, and that we need real capitalism...

but, reforms made by both the roosevelts were rooted in the idea that markets are impossible, which, by the way, is what they taught me in first-year economics: that the idea of market equilibrium in prefect competition is a naive, utopian, mathematical fantasy and that the reality is that a perfectly free market will *always* quickly combine into an oligopoly or monopoly (which are basically the same thing...) through the collusion of so-called competitors. self-interest seeks to avoid competition, even if it results in a short-term loss; competition is purely destructive, from the top's perspective. collusion is always preferable. so, rather than get market capitalism, you get cartel systems that snuff out competition as soon as it appears.

what bothers me is that this is an insight that was arrived at 100 years ago and is taught in first year, but that the vast majority of the population seems to somehow still be unaware of. holding to market theory is as awful as holding to creationism. it's impossible.

if there's no such thing as a truly free market in real life, you're left with two options if you want to stick with something like the status quo.

you can do what the first roosevelt did, which is smash the cartels up and then follow that by what the second roosevelt did, which is put rules in place to try and create a pretend free market. that is, if spontaneous markets are impossible, then we can create make believe markets that function in the way we think spontaneous markets ought to, but in truth can't. we've learned that this just breeds corruption that undoes the regulation via capturing the agencies, and results in a re-establishment of the cartel system through stealth - which is what we have today.

the other option is to stop pretending that market theory is worthwhile, and just revert back to good old state-funded mercantilism.

the reality is that all three options lead to the same outcome: cartel systems protected by the state. because this is what capitalism actually is.

www.cbc.ca/news/business/robert-reich-saving-capitalism-tpp-1.3256940

see, again, i’m starting to wonder if you need to interpret the undecideds differently when measuring over ivr – like, literally, rather than throwaway as following the same distribution. at 7.7% undecided, scaling down puts the conservatives at 32.4 absolute response rate – which is consistent with the other numbers, although it’s also almost in the margin of error. even 33-34% doesn’t strike me as inconsistent, it’s the consistently lower liberal numbers that are weird and, regionally, that seems to be in bc and quebec. i’m even willing to accept that nanos may be overweighting the liberals in bc. but, what was the sordid story about underweighting the liberals in bc, again? aha. but, then if you scale them down you get to 28.5, which you can the scale back up to the mid 30s (and there’s even a bit room to give to the ndp).

i know this is being very creative and everything, but it does make a lot of sense if you consider that actually talking to somebody is going to get a different undecided response than a telephone system. i mean, yeah: i’m just playing with the numbers. but it adds up. and it makes sense.

that said, it might not be generalizable, it might just be the specific nature of this election, where support for the incumbents is so deeply entrenched, and support for the two opposition parties is so uncommitted.

it’s an idea, to consider, anyways.

although i’m curious about what an “invalid response” is. 11% is a lot. please shoot me an email if you decide to respond in this space, so i can come back and see it.

www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stable-but-narrowing-conservative-lead-as-ndp-in-a-holding-pattern-well-back-of-leaders/

maybe you could defend her right to personhood by telling her what to think, too, considering that you think you have the right to tell her what to wear.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/fifty-years-in-canada-and-now-i-feel-like-a-second-class-citizen/article26691065/

are we going to stop teaching evolution, too?

it's the kids that have fundamentalist parents that are the most important to reach.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/two-toronto-schools-vandalized-in-protest-of-new-sex-ed-curriculum/article26275255/

i understand that it's considered unlikely, but i'm still wondering whether all that warm water in the pacific may bring some storms into the west coast - maybe a little further south. it's not a great thought, but maybe a hurricane slamming los angeles would wake some people up. it has to be in the realm of possible ramifications of long term climate change...

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/hurricane-oho-could-bring-gusty-winds-and-heavy-rain-to-bc/58224/

that's kind of twisting it around, kate. you vote on the tpp first, then write the budget that may or may not have measures in it. you don't write the budget with the assumption the tpp is passed, then vote on it and claim it's a budgetary issue. by that logic, any vote with funding attached to it is a budget issue?

i'm not convinced that what trudeau says really justifies the headline. but, voters should be voting on the assumption that the liberals will back the deal. they back most trade deals.

i do, however, agree that a referendum is a good idea.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/07/trudeau-tpp-_n_8257950.html

this should be the theme song for the lou reed fan club.

i've long assumed that netanyahu's seemingly ridiculous analysis of iran (according to mossad, even) is just internal israeli politics - that it's just typical fear mongering, in order to present himself as a protector of israel. the need for an external enemy. etc. there's holes in this, but a better explanation has not been apparent.

but, chomsky brings up some points here that provide for somewhat of an alternate explanation: that there may be a faction of the israeli elite that continues to see iran as competition for preferred american client state. this might seem remote to somebody that was actually born after 1979. but, if you realize that the shah was just as much of an american client state as israel has been since, and perhaps even that israel has taken on responsibilities that america previously designated to the shah, then any thawing of relations - however miniscule - are perhaps a legitimate threat to israeli security. not in the sense that iran is a serious threat to israel in any direct way, but in the sense that it may balance american interest and that is a threat to israel.

of course, this isn't actually happening. and i couldn't imagine any sober analysis concluding there's any threat of it happening. but the threat of the threat of it happening is perhaps in itself enough to require an israeli policy that attempts to hamper even the most minimal of steps towards normalization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yiaA1HbhhY