Election September

[Wild Bill]

You say demonizing your opponent is a waste of time and then do it.

It is obvious it is never a waste of time to demonize your opponent.

Well, if I consider ALL of the parties to be my opponents then at least I'm an "equal opportunity demonizer"!

That being said, I try not to be blind to the faults of my (default) choice or oblivious to any virtues of the others.

Somebody has to be objective. Otherwise getting what you thought you wanted can prove disappointing.

[Wild Bill]

Ya know, after the election it's gonna be great fun to look back through this thread!

Bold predictions of Liberal sweeps! Or Harper sweeps, for that matter.

Canadians rising up and realizing that one or two particular posters in this forum were absolutely right! Then voting en masse for the choice of those posters!

We will see who is objective and who is merely partisan.

What's more, whatever the outcome, the sun will still rise in the east the next morning.

[Fortunata]

And many who criticize him were planning to vote against him anyway.

And those who champion him would vote for him no matter what he does or doesn't do regardless of the broken promises. They can justify those actions with the .... but the Liberals mantra that covers all the CPC action/non-action/gaffes/incompetences/more-than-Liberal spending.

[Stephen Best]

... the Liberals mantra that covers all the CPC action/non-action/gaffes/incompetences/more-than-Liberal spending.

It's curious that the Liberals and liberals in general are painted with the "tax and spend" brush, when history shows that it's Conservatives and conservatives who rack up the spending and deficits, and the Liberals and liberals who have to clean up conservative excess and irresponsibility and put the fiscal house in order. Conservatives cannot be trusted with the cheque book.

[jdobbin]

Ya know, after the election it's gonna be great fun to look back through this thread!

Bold predictions of Liberal sweeps! Or Harper sweeps, for that matter.

For the sake of your memory of where I stand, I've said since 2006 that the Tories will win another minority.

[Wild Bill]

It's curious that the Liberals and liberals in general are painted with the "tax and spend" brush, when history shows that it's Conservatives and conservatives who rack up the spending and deficits, and the Liberals and liberals who have to clean up conservative excess and irresponsibility and put the fiscal house in order. Conservatives cannot be trusted with the cheque book.

I find this most curious. I'm wondering if there is an age factor here.

Are you ignoring the history that began with Pearson and Trudeau? I would agree that Mulroney didn't do much to correct the situation but it started LONG before his time!

I lived it! I watched it happen. It was pretty obvious to many as to how things were going to end up if nobody paid attention but no one had any power to affect governments.

It was Manning who made not just the deficit but the overall sky-rocketing national debt a key platform of his party. I never heard boo out of Turner about it. Chretien just stole some of Manning's thunder, for two reasons. One is that the gnomes in Zurich were ready to blacken our national credit rating. The other is that's what smart Liberals have always done! If another party's platform plank looks really popular, steal it! Then voters can get it without having to vote against the "Natural Governing Party".

You seem to be painting a total reversal of the historical record. Sorry, but without more evidence this seems to me like just more partisan Harper bashing.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Stephen Best]

Are you ignoring the history that began with Pearson and Trudeau? I would agree that Mulroney didn't do much to correct the situation but it started LONG before his time!

I lived it! I watched it happen. It was pretty obvious to many as to how things were going to end up if nobody paid attention but no one had any power to affect governments.

It was Manning who made not just the deficit but the overall sky-rocketing national debt a key platform of his party. I never heard boo out of Turner about it. Chretien just stole some of Manning's thunder, for two reasons. One is that the gnomes in Zurich were ready to blacken our national credit rating. The other is that's what smart Liberals have always done! If another party's platform plank looks really popular, steal it! Then voters can get it without having to vote against the "Natural Governing Party".

You seem to be painting a total reversal of the historical record. Sorry, but without more evidence this seems to me like just more partisan Harper bashing.

I lived it, too. So much for the age factor. The fact is that Pearson and Trudeau are no longer with us. The fact is that the current crop of conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, and the current liberals and social democrats are not. We know that conservatives will purport to cut taxes but will, in fact, raise user fees and increase deficits in order to hide the fiscal problems. The problem is that conservatives believe as a matter of faith rather than fact that tax cuts, in general, improve the economy. The notion is too simplistic and dogmatic. And, as has been demonstrated, doesn't work as a general panacea. Careful, pragmatic tax cuts and tax increases on various sectors and income groups works well. Tax cuts for the rich are bad public policy.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I just don't seen an election being called before at least the three Sept. 8 by-elections are held.

[Wild Bill]

I lived it, too. So much for the age factor. The fact is that Pearson and Trudeau are no longer with us. The fact is that the current crop of conservatives are fiscally irresponsible, and the current liberals and social democrats are not. We know that conservatives will purport to cut taxes but will, in fact, raise user fees and increase deficits in order to hide the fiscal problems. The problem is that conservatives believe as a matter of faith rather than fact that tax cuts, in general, improve the economy. The notion is too simplistic and dogmatic. And, as has been demonstrated, doesn't work as a general panacea. Careful, pragmatic tax cuts and tax increases on various sectors and income groups works well. Tax cuts for the rich are bad public policy.

Ok, if you say so.

Now, who specifically do you mean by "the current liberals and social democrats"? What can you give us as proof that they are not fiscally irresponsible?

Are you talking only about the Chretien regime? Or have you other examples?

A bit of substance here might give us something to chew on...

[August1991]

The thing to remember is that national polls mean very little. What's important is what happens at the electoral district level, and that's where the Liberals have it all over the CPC. The national polls are distorted by massive support for the CPC in areas with few seats and Liberals' modest support in regions with the most seats.

Stephen, what you fail to consider is that regionalism - not ideology - drives Canadian federal politics.

Stephen Harper has succeeded by respecting Canada's regions and putting together a national coalition. Harper has the political skills to keep this coalition together. In the CPC caucus, there are members from Alberta, Quebec and Newfoundland. They all want Harper as leader. In Canada, given our history, that's an impressive feat.

In the upcoming federal election, an important question is how many seats the Conservatives will win in Quebec and in rural southern-western Ontario. If you know either region, ideology has nothing to do with this.

Edited August 24, 2008 by August1991

[Stephen Best]

Ok, if you say so.

Now, who specifically do you mean by "the current liberals and social democrats"? What can you give us as proof that they are not fiscally irresponsible?

Are you talking only about the Chretien regime? Or have you other examples?

At the federal level, as you know, it was the Liberals who "slayed the deficit dragon" left by the Conservatives. In Ontario, the Liberals had to clean up the mess left by the Harris and Eves PCs who, to make ends meet, were selling provincial assets. As I say the notion that liberals and social democrats are fiscally irresponsible and only conservatives can balance a cheque book and avoid the credit cards is pure nonsense. Yet, as usual, it's the bunk conservatives not only peddle to the rest of us, but delude themselves into believing, as usual, ignoring the facts. Witness Harper's "tax and spend" charges leveled at the Liberals who cleaned up his gang's mess. Witness Harper's mismanagement of the federal budget so that, it appears, that we'll have a deficit for the first time in some years.

[Stephen Best]

Stephen, what you fail to consider is that regionalism - not ideology - drives Canadian federal politics.

Stephen Harper has succeeded by respecting Canada's regions and putting together a national coalition. Harper has the political skills to keep this coalition together.

Regionalism is ideology. I would suggest that the only reason Stephen Harper won a minority in the last election was the so-called Sponsorship Scandal. The fact is that with the exception of Alberta, the Liberal's base is historically stronger and broader than that enjoyed by the Conservatives. That's why Liberals have governed for more years than Conservatives.

With the Sponsorship Scandal gone, Harper can only rely on his own record and deeply flawed character (consider the broken promises from income trusts to fixed elections, consider not lifting election gag laws after he fought them to SCC, consider not opening up transparency in government and not respecting committees-broken promises all). That record since the last election has produced no gains for him or his party--a truly remarkable failing, given how fractured and accommodating the opposition was. The Conservatives should be further concerned in that since the last election they have never failed to blame the Liberals for every ill they can conjure. No Conservative spokesman could answer a question without blaming a Liberal. They've even run negative ads against Dion, all to little or no avail.

In my view, they shot everything they had, and missed the mark. They have nothing new or interesting for the election. The Liberals, on the other hand, will begin firing at the Conservatives when it matters most, in an election.

[Wild Bill]

Regionalism is ideology. I would suggest that the only reason Stephen Harper won a minority in the last election was the so-called Sponsorship Scandal. The fact is that with the exception of Alberta, the Liberal's base is historically stronger and broader than that enjoyed by the Conservatives. That's why Liberals have governed for more years than Conservatives.

With the Sponsorship Scandal gone, Harper can only rely on his own record and deeply flawed character (consider the broken promises from income trusts to fixed elections, consider not lifting election gag laws after he fought them to SCC, consider not opening up transparency in government and not respecting committees-broken promises all). That record since the last election has produced no gains for him or his party--a truly remarkable failing, given how fractured and accommodating the opposition was. The Conservatives should be further concerned in that since the last election they have never failed to blame the Liberals for every ill they can conjure. No Conservative spokesman could answer a question without blaming a Liberal. They've even run negative ads against Dion, all to little or no avail.

In my view, they shot everything they had, and missed the mark. They have nothing new or interesting for the election. The Liberals, on the other hand, will begin firing at the Conservatives when it matters most, in an election.

Well, when the election comes we shall see how accurate are your predictions. Should be great fun to go back through the threads and bump a poster's words back up to the fore!

As for Dalton being fiscally responsible, he sure seems to be spending a lot of money buying disputed land to lie fallow in Caledonia. He might win another term but it will be a LONG time before a Liberal wins again in the Brant or Haldiman areas!

Then again, he's really only Toronto's premier anyways. The Ontario Libs know where their bread is buttered. When he first campaigned he promised to reverse Harris' forced amalgamation of suburban cities into Hamilton. He also promised to ease Hamilton's crushing social services tax load from all the halfway houses and other programs dumped onto Hamilton's civic budget.

Once he got in he not only broke his promises, he can't even remember even making them!

Maybe he's David Miller's friend but he's no friend of us here. The sad thing is that the Liberals have such a strong base in the area that he'll likely continue to get away with it.

People have short memories. We get what we deserve, I guess.

[jdobbin]

Looks like snap election it is.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

At an Ottawa press conference Tuesday, Mr. Harper insisted he would not be breaking his word by disregarding his own fixed-election-date law that sets voting day in October, 2009, insisting that opposition parties want to bring down the government before then, so it is up to him to remove doubts about who will govern.

“They're committed to an election well before then. If they're clearly committed to that course of action, and I think they are, then it behooves the government to provide some responsibility,” he said.

“The country must have a government that can function during a time of economic uncertainty, and if it's not this government, or not this Parliament, the public will have an opportunity to decide whom.”

Yeesh. What contortions Harper is making to justify breaking his promise.

[Fortunata]

Yeesh. What contortions Harper is making to justify breaking his promise.

Yep, he's a weasel alright.

[WIP]

How many times has an insecure, nervous government lost when they tried to call a snap election before an economic downturn?

One that comes to mind for me was when Liberal Ontario Premier David Peterson called an election in 1990, less than three years into his mandate. At the time, he had double-digit leads over both the P.C.'s and the N.D.P., but voters turned on his attempt to stage-manage a third majority government and did the unthinkable -- electing an NDP government, rather than reward Peterson for showing his contempt for the voters' intelligence.

Right now, all of the Tories are psyching themselves up to believe that Stephan Dion is unelectable, but the political landscape may change the day he calls an election, just as it has done to so many other losers in the past, who tried to lengthen their stays in office.

[Argus]

At the federal level, as you know, it was the Liberals who "slayed the deficit dragon" left by the Conservatives.

This is simplistic nonsense. The Liberals created the debt in the first place through irresponsible spending and taxation. Then came bad economic times with double digit inflation and interest rates. The vast majority of the deficits during Mulroney's time consisted of $40 billion cheques he had to write to pay the interest on the Trudeau debt. He did bring program spending under control, but with high unemployment and the country - and world in the midst of a recession his options were limited, esp by the high debt Trudeau had created. He did institute some good policy initiatives, such as the GST. When the recession ended (through no efforts by the Liberals, I assure you) the volume of taxes which flooded into government coffers, in no small measure through the GST - which the Liberals had violently opposed - pretty much ended the deficit.

However, we've seen that the real reason they were able to control spending is that with the opposition in tatters the Liberals simply saw no reason to act on anything. Why spend money on something new when you're already way out in front in the polls? That was why Chretien let Martin get away with closing the deficit gap with the increased taxes - and let him squirrel that money away rather than spending it on programs. Once the opposition got their act together and started threatening the government in the polls the money taps were turned and huge spending increases poured out of the Chretien and then Martin governments.

In Ontario, the Liberals had to clean up the mess left by the Harris and Eves PCs who, to make ends meet, were selling provincial assets.

More nonsense. In fact, the Tories managed to close the deficit gap and eliminate the deficit despite very bad economc times with the feds slashing transfer payments to them. Only in the last year, with a number of unforeseen crisis errupting, such as Sars, the blackout, etc, did the Tories transition back into deficit. But the deficit wasn't a big one. The Liberals lied about it after they came to power, and made a number of accounting changes to make it seem much larger than it was. They also greatly increased spending. In fact, their first year tax increase (the so-called health care premium) would have eliminated the deficit on its own had the Liberals not increased spending so much. Each year they increased spending then cried crocodile tears by saying it was the Tories responsible for Ontario still having a deficit. Phttt. Only fools bought that.

[Argus]

In my view, they shot everything they had, and missed the mark. They have nothing new or interesting for the election. The Liberals, on the other hand, will begin firing at the Conservatives when it matters most, in an election.

They'll first have to come up with some kind of er, policy, right? I mean, something they actually want to do - about - something. I mean, they haven't had any actual policies or program ideas in at least ten years or so. The only thing they've come up with while in opposition is the laughably ridiculous and misnamed "green shift" which is nothing more than a shift of money from the middle class (productive workers) to the poor (non-productive non-workers).

[Stephen Best]

This is simplistic nonsense. The Liberals created the debt in the first place through irresponsible spending and taxation. Then came bad economic times with double digit inflation and interest rates. The vast majority of the deficits during Mulroney's time consisted of $40 billion cheques he had to write to pay the interest on the Trudeau debt. He did bring program spending under control, but with high unemployment and the country - and world in the midst of a recession his options were limited, esp by the high debt Trudeau had created. He did institute some good policy initiatives, such as the GST. When the recession ended (through no efforts by the Liberals, I assure you) the volume of taxes which flooded into government coffers, in no small measure through the GST - which the Liberals had violently opposed - pretty much ended the deficit.

However, we've seen that the real reason they were able to control spending is that with the opposition in tatters the Liberals simply saw no reason to act on anything. Why spend money on something new when you're already way out in front in the polls? That was why Chretien let Martin get away with closing the deficit gap with the increased taxes - and let him squirrel that money away rather than spending it on programs. Once the opposition got their act together and started threatening the government in the polls the money taps were turned and huge spending increases poured out of the Chretien and then Martin governments.

More nonsense. In fact, the Tories managed to close the deficit gap and eliminate the deficit despite very bad economc times with the feds slashing transfer payments to them. Only in the last year, with a number of unforeseen crisis errupting, such as Sars, the blackout, etc, did the Tories transition back into deficit. But the deficit wasn't a big one. The Liberals lied about it after they came to power, and made a number of accounting changes to make it seem much larger than it was. They also greatly increased spending. In fact, their first year tax increase (the so-called health care premium) would have eliminated the deficit on its own had the Liberals not increased spending so much. Each year they increased spending then cried crocodile tears by saying it was the Tories responsible for Ontario still having a deficit. Phttt. Only fools bought that.

Once more a conservative apologist create an alternate reality in fantasy land where all conservatives are smart and honorable and all liberals are dumb and dishonorable.

[Alta4ever]

Yep, he's a weasel alright.

Can something be said for those who sit on their hands and refuse to do the job they were elected to do.

Harper has done something Dion and the liberals have done nothing but make noise, occupy space, and disrupt the parlimentary process. Instead of not showing up to a vote maybe they should have voted the government out of office, but then again, there was no political advantage, and obviously liberals have no principles to stand up for. At least Jack and Gille showed up to do their jobs.

[HisSelf]

How can you tell there's gonna be an election? Jim Flaherty suddenly finds a 1.5 billion surplus after announcing a two month defecit (now there's a novelty - a two month reporting period - who's ever done that before?). Imagine that. A finance minister who reports (but just this one time, mind you) that there was a deficit in the first two months of the quarter, and then finds a humungous surplus in the third month. Jeez, Jim. Did you ever work for Mike Harris? There is a job at Nortel for a guy just like you.

Oh wait. The SEC... Ayuggah. Ayuggah! Dive! Dive!

So lets' see. We have the In/Out election financing mess. We have some big by-elections caoming up. We have.... mmmm.. Harper in the North! Ha ha. Announcing things that were in the last budget. Ha ha.

Ayuggah. Ayuggah. Dive! Dive!

[Ontario Loyalist]

This is simplistic nonsense.

Is this a preamble?

The Liberals created the debt in the first place through irresponsible spending and taxation. Then came bad economic times with double digit inflation and interest rates.

"The federal debt climbed past $50 billion in 1977, past $100 billion in 1980, and past $200 billion in 1985. Part of this increase was due to inflation, but even in GDP-related terms the debt rose from a low of 18.4 per cent in 1975 to 46.3 per cent ten years later, and it just kept rising. Public debt charges durin this same period ballooned from $3.2 billion to $22.4 billion, or as a proportion of GDP from 2.1 per cent to 5.2 per cent." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 96)

The vast majority of the deficits during Mulroney's time consisted of $40 billion cheques he had to write to pay the interest on the Trudeau debt. He did bring program spending under control

"The 1985-86 fiscal year, the first period with the Tories fully in control, showed a slight drop in program spending, to $86.1 billion from $87.1 billion the year before. But soon spending was on the rise again, reaching $122.6 billion in 1992-93 near the end of the Tory reign. At 17.5 per cent, this was almost as high in real terms as the levels late in the Trudeau era that the Tories had found so excessive when they sat on the opposition benches." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 99)

"The accumulated debt continued to its inexorable rise, passing $300 billion in March 1988, despite the perpetual blather from Mulroney and Wilson about their valiant attacks on the deficit." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 99)

, but with high unemployment and the country - and world in the midst of a recession his options were limited, esp by the high debt Trudeau had created.

"The Tories came to power at a moment when the last lingering effects of the early-1980s recession were sinking into memory. These were boom times. The economy was showing robust growth, unemployment was was falling... According to Keynsian theory, it is under favourable conditions such as these that governments should put their houses in order, to prepare for a rainy day.... But Keynes had fallen out of favour.... In his first and subsequent budgets, Wilson also announced reductions in personal income tax, with the biggest cuts going to those with the biggest incomes. Not only did this produce a less progressive income tax, but it also limited the government's ability to tame the deficit." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 97/98)

"The accumulated debt passed the $400-billion mark in 1991 and the half-trillion mark soon after Paul Martin became finance minister near the end of 1993.... The Mulroney government became more serious about fighting the deficit only as Canada was about to enter its long recession." (Paul Martin: A Political Biography, 101/102)

etc. etc. etc.

[Wilber]

The fact is that with the exception of Alberta, the Liberal's base is historically stronger and broader than that enjoyed by the Conservatives.

Seems the Liberals also believe Canada ends at the Rockies.

[Stephen Best]

Seems the Liberals also believe Canada ends at the Rockies.

British Columbia is represented by Members of Parliament from the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. None of the parties "believe Canada ends at the Rockies." That's a delusional whine that BC people have been weeping since I was born their many decades ago.

[Wilber]

British Columbia is represented by Members of Parliament from the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP. None of the parties "believe Canada ends at the Rockies." That's a delusional whine that BC people have been weeping since I was born their many decades ago.

Yes and for many years a majority of them have historically been PC, Reform, Alliance or CPC, not Liberal as you would have us believe.