Election September

[Wild Bill]

Is this a preamble?

"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 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)

"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.

Well, what would you expect Paul Martin to say? The Liberals triggered the avalanche and the Tories didn't shovel enough?

Could you possibly have chosen a more partisan source?

[Stephen Best]

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.

Remind us when I asserted that the majority of BC MPs have been Liberal.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Stephen Best

[Wilber]

Remind us when I asserted that the majority of BC MPs have been Liberal.

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

[jdobbin]

The objective of the Tories in the election.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, believes Harper would be satisfied to return with a strengthened minority -- a result that would throw the Liberals into chaos, thereby advancing the prime minister's longterm strategy of destroying Canada's so-called natural governing party.

Part of the tactic of politics as war strategy.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Well, what would you expect Paul Martin to say? The Liberals triggered the avalanche and the Tories didn't shovel enough?

Could you possibly have chosen a more partisan source?

This book isn't an autobiography, though.

[August1991]

The objective of the Tories in the election.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Part of the tactic of politics as war strategy.

The G&M has a similar article:

Conventional wisdom suggests Stephen Harper must be mad to thrust the country into an election at a time when he has little hope of winning a majority.

The Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that public opinion polls “aren't particularly wonderful” and has predicted that another minority — either Conservative or Liberal — is the likely result.

But a former chief of staff to Mr. Harper suggests there's method to the Prime Minister's apparent madness.

Tom Flanagan, a political scientist at the University of Calgary, believes Mr. Harper would be satisfied to return with a strengthened minority — a result that would throw the Liberals into chaos, thereby advancing the prime minister's long-term strategy of destroying Canada's so-called natural governing party.

“I don't think Harper has to be thinking about a majority at all,” Mr. Flanagan said in an interview.

“Strategically, this is sort of a prolonged war of attrition.”

G&M

It's an interesting take on this situation. I frankly don't think that Dion will go quietly into the night if he returns as Opposition Leader in a minority parliament.

Harper's the kind of politician who likes situations where, whatever happens, he still comes out OK. IOW, Harper decides by looking at the worst-case scenario.

I still think that Harper is playing hardball in his threat for an election. He's bluffing to get the Opposition in line for the fall session. And if his bluff fails? Well, worst-case scenario, we have an election where Harper will likely be returned with another minority.

-----

Flanagan does have a point. The Liberals hate losing. The only thing that keeps the Liberal Party together is the patronage of power. How would Liberals cope with a series of (small) defeats?

[Wild Bill]

This book isn't an autobiography, though.

Oh, well! Indeed! That makes it COMPLETELY a different story!

How could anyone have thought otherwise!

Mea culpa!

[Stephen Best]

Wilber, perhaps you might refrain from reading more into my posts than what is, in fact, contained in them.

[normanchateau]

From today's Vancouver Sun:

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper trying to find an excuse to call an election before the "fixed" election date, it is a good time to revisit the words of Conservative MP Jay Hill during the debate on the bill to set those fixed dates:

"If a prime minister went against the spirit of this legislation and purely called an election because he or she felt the opportunity was ripe, that the situation for his or her particular political party was very advantageous to go to the polls, I suspect that person would quite likely be punished by the Canadian people in the subsequent election campaign."

We can only hope.

Jean-Paul Faubert

Vancouver