Derek 2.0

I doubt it, doing so for the Liberals or NDP is suicidal, as the junior partner in coalitions take all the political risk (and blowback) as the senior partner, but don't receive any political praise........ One other thing to point out, Trudeau has said he won't support a Harper minority Government "bill by bill", he's never mentioned what he'd do with a Kenney/Raitt/Mackay?/Baird? Government.......inversely, Trudeau might very well be supportive of an NDP Government, that of course doesn't mean the entire Liberal Party would.......

Cameron won a "surprise" Majority this past Spring.....his former Liberal Democrat partners were wiped off the map.

That remains to be see, but I will admit, I'm surprised with the declining NDP numbers in Quebec...... That's possible, but I'd question if such a shift would only effect tight Liberal-NDP races in urban areas......I can't see that having an effect in most of BC or Ontario outside of metro Toronto. I'd question if that is a result of the NDP having a bad campaign, and not Trudeau having a good one. In terms of policy, as a biased Tory, I will say the Liberal team (absent Trudeau) has put forth more substance than the NDP (I've seen strata councils put forth better budgetary updates than the NDP's piece). October 20th will tell the whole tale, but I think the present Liberal party is no longer the past Liberal party, which I feel the NDP is trying to become..........When Harper returns to a majority on the 20th, I can't fathom a major shake-up. for both the Liberals and NDP, not being forthwith.

And another Trudeau gaffe on terrorists remaining in Canada and in print:

A new poll from Abacus: Nationwide: Interesting to note, as Cybercoma mentioned last week, is the Quebec numbers for the NDP: It seems the Liberals, Tories and the Bloc are all improving in Quebec at the NDP's expense. It's quite clear, if the NDP lose their base support, they will return to a third place rump party, a cruel lesson about relying upon Quebec, that the Liberals and Tories know all too well. And in the two battlegrounds that will decide this election:

What I find both funny and ironic, since you speak to religious fundamentalism, is that you could replace calamitous climate change, with saving ones soul from damnation……..Your approach to your stated goal of preserving the environment, though perhaps noble in its intent, is what is holding your cause back. Your claims of the end is nigh is no different sounding to the mainstream than a Holy Roller attempting to save humanities collective souls. Any positive movement on the environment will come about from the mainstream political process and market capitalism, despite your best preaching otherwise. The only thing your approach guarantees is further alienation of your movement and years of wasted effort. So an environmental Rapture or the second coming of batteries is the only way out? Oh I don’t think so, the environmental movements key failure is not understanding a tenant of consumerism…….you’re never going to get the crowd to follow you with ranting and raving, the true saviours of the environment (The evil Corporate World), will just position themselves affront of whatever direction the crowd is going in, and make money hand over fist.

Wouldn't a more prudent approach be to raise revenues.........would you consider going into debt for nearly $1.5 billion to fund "the arts", as the Liberals plan to, a wise use of money? Why should transit be a Federal function? Metro Vancouver recently voted against a tax increase to raise funds for transit upgrades, so if those living in Vancouver don't want to pay "their fair share", why should other Canadians be forced to? Likewise Child care, why is this a role of the Federal Government? If it actually results in an economic gain for a family, shouldn't the family pay invest in it themselves? Likewise, some suggest there isn't enough daycare spaces, my question, what happened to market capitalism? If there was an actual demand, wouldn't people be filling this niche market? My wife has often joked, at an average of $700+ a month per child, she should close her dental practice and open a daycare ranch.........yet, the claimed money to be had, versus the stated demand, leaves a result that doesn't smell right......... They don't give you money, they return money you gave to them.........what you spend it on isn't anyone's business really.

You're probably right, but it will be interesting to see what the United States Fed does later this year.

Furthermore, if they spike during Trudeau's planned "investment" budgets.......turn the lights off on your way outta Canada.

He did, outside of servicing the debt left by Trudeau, the Mulroney Governments did run a balanced operating budget, his failure was not bringing in the GST earlier in his second mandate.

As I asked before, how does the environmental movement expect positive gains divorced from the mainstream?

Inversely, has there been any indication that said changes haven't had an effect? I know from a personal example, the rules encompassing foreign trusts have been strengthened, so now any distributions from said trust fund are considered dividends taxed at a higher rate post 2013. A rather simplistic view on foreign investment, as any worthwhile investment doesn’t see funds sit static.

Have the Liberals or NDP indicated how they would stop the "damage"? From Suzuki's interview, it doesn't appear the Liberals are much different than the Tories.

With other people's money and money that is bored......some might call that a gamble. Simple, his promises and proposed revenue increases don't jive.....

Have we fallen into the Matrix here?

What record? When did the Liberal Governments of the 90s/00s propose similar "investments"? Likewise: Sure, and said increases that he's made public, still won't cover his promises.

How does it stand in the way of supremacy of Parliament? Likewise, how is it unconstitutional?

Trudeau hasn't demonstrated how he will return to a balanced budget...........if Mulcair is promising zero deficits, he will have to raise taxes and cut programs to fund even half of his promises.

Good thing these laws don't tie any hands in an economic crisis then.

Reread my first post in this thread. Trudeau is and Mulcair's platform is lacking in detail, well promising billions in new spending.....

Sure, of course hindsight is 20/20, I don't think any Government in early 2008 could have predicted how bad the 2008 crisis was going to be.......as such, I'd question if the Government wouldn't have gone into deficit even without stimulus spending.

Are not future parliaments free to rewrite such legislation....granted at a political cost. Odd, Trudeau and Mulcair are both promising to raise taxes and spending....

There is no circle to square, without it, a coalition Liberal/NDP/Bloc Government would have done it for them.

Without a doubt politics played large on the spending spree, but even I won't argue against some targeted stimulus spending during a major economic contraction........as such, in the balanced budget legislation, it allows for emergency spending in such cases.

Not at all, since both pieces of legislation prevent deficits/tax increases when their is no valid reason for one.........not even the most ardent Keynesian would suggest deficit spending on social programs to be prudent economic policy.......