Budget Raises Doubts Among Some Conservatives

Progressive Tory · January 30, 2009

Budget spending raises doubts among some Conservatives

I mentioned earlier that I had been hearing some grumbling within the Conservative Party about the 85 Billion dollar deficit projection. We were discussing one or two Liberal MPs who are having trouble selling it back home. However, could we see a few Conservatives vote down the budget on Monday? This goes against everything they claim to stand for.

"With a federal budget projecting that Canada will be $85 billion further in debt by 2013, some Conservative party faithful are questioning what it means for the party's ideology. "... the budget may have been directed more at helping the Conservative's minority government stay in power rather than helping Canadians. "Former Conservative MP Monte Solberg told CBC News on Wednesday he's heard concerns similar to DeGreeve's from other Albertans."

Name one thing that's conservative about Stephen Harper's NDP budget

"I will not be supporting this budget today, nor will I be voting Conservative any more. The Conservative Party and Stephen Harper have strayed so far from the principles of conservatism that I cannot abide this budget. Jack Layton has been scoring points off Mr.Harper by wondering rhetorically why the Conservatives were releasing the NDP budget."

John Ivison: Harper government down to its last few principles

"Today’s budget will be the final act in a long transformation of Mr. Harper’s Conservative Party from a policy- driven, principled voice for conservatism to a process-driven electoral machine, intent only on surviving the coming budget vote and winning the next election."

Will some Conservatives listen to their base? Perhaps they'd rather have sat in opposition where they could condemn the deficit spending, rather than in government where they'll have to defend it. But that ship has sailed. It's their baby now unless they themselves vote it down.

jdobbin · January 31, 2009

Will some Conservatives listen to their base? Perhaps they'd rather have sat in opposition where they could condemn the deficit spending, rather than in government where they'll have to defend it. But that ship has sailed. It's their baby now unless they themselves vote it down.

I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the budget. My feeling is that it would not be tolerated by the PMO.

As for the Liberals voting against the budget, I don't know what Ignatieff will do. My guess is that he will let it pass so long as there is enough votes to let the budget pass. There is too much controversy involving early election or coalition to reject the budget outright.

Ignatieff needs to get the Liberals organized and have in terms of structure, policy and financing and start recruiting candidates. Harper himself may pull the plug early to avoid having to go another budget with the type of deficit we have seen now.

There is so much anger in the west about the deficit that it will be interesting to see how many on the right start withdrawing support.

August1991 · January 31, 2009

I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the budget. My feeling is that it would not be tolerated by the PMO.

This has nothing to do with the PMO.

First, the alternative is worse.

Second, I agree with Colby Cosh:

Maybe I'm getting old. I'm having trouble working up the same chest-thumping outrage over the new federal budget that other conservative, libertarian and generally just plain crusty commentators have displayed. Could it be a sign of declining testosterone? A side-effect of medication?

Thhird, the budget isn't bad once you look at it carefully and give it some second thought. As a spending stimulus package, it is short term and limited. As a tax cutting stimulus package, the tax cuts were announced as permanent which is both good in principle and good because it will lead to the greatest Keynesian-style stimulus.

This is conservatism in the true sense of the word. The package is modest and the federal government can certainly handle this minor deficit/debt. Harper can sit around the table at the G7 and say that he has done his bit.

The fiscal policy is a good complement to the aggressive monetary policy of the Bank of Canada.

Ottawa looks very good compared to the circus in Washington.

Topaz · January 31, 2009

Flaherty said they are planning on a short term deficit and what happens when they aren't prepared for a long term melt down? Everything depends on the US and they are looking critically sick with 4.8 million looking for jobs and more losing their jobs. If most of the US companies in Canada decide to leave and go back home, whose going to restore those job losses? What is the interest on this debt? The government isn't going to be getting the revenue from income tax with so many unemployed.

jdobbin · January 31, 2009

This has nothing to do with the PMO.

Really? It is the PMO telling the caucus that party solidarity is absolute on the budget. They were talking about this on the political talk shows this evening.

First, the alternative is worse.

The alternative is you start your own conservative party. You seem to think the alternative is to support the Liberals.

Second, I agree with ]Colby Cosh

You agree you are getting old?

As for Cash, he simply turned the story around to attack the Liberals. Cash is angry that the Liberals didn't bring down the budget. He should be angry that the Tories even wrote such a budget.

Thhird, the budget isn't bad once you look at it carefully and give it some second thought. As a spending stimulus package, it is short term and limited. As a tax cutting stimulus package, the tax cuts were announced as permanent which is both good in principle and good because it will lead to the greatest Keynesian-style stimulus.

Doesn't matter how you explain it, the deficit spending and many of the programs supported in the budget makes many in the west furious.

The Tories should have had a reserve fund building up when they decided to eliminate the surplus. It might have gotten them over the deficit and left room for a stimulus.

This is conservatism in the true sense of the word. The package is modest and the federal government can certainly handle this minor deficit/debt. Harper can sit around the table at the G7 and say that he has done his bit.

Given the anger out there, I'd say that some on the right don't want your conservatism.

The fiscal policy is a good complement to the aggressive monetary policy of the Bank of Canada.
Ottawa looks very good compared to the circus in Washington.

Once again, you are looking at the forest and not seeing the trees.

Alta4ever · January 31, 2009

1.If most of the US companies in Canada decide to leave and go back home, whose going to restore those job losses?
2 The government isn't going to be getting the revenue from income tax with so many unemployed.

1. Why would they do that when they are making a profit here?

2. What is our unemployment rate again? The rate hasn't shot up, just certain regions are feeling the effects of 2 things the because of union bargining and high dollar value which made the canadian labour cost to high to bear in a global enviornment.

August1991 · January 31, 2009

Doesn't matter how you explain it, the deficit spending and many of the programs supported in the budget makes many in the west furious.

I am a conservative in the sense that I want to reduce government purchases in the economy and government regulation in society. The only government purchases that I want are clearly defined public goods, and the only government regulations that I want are clearly defined criminal behaviour.

Harper presents a new (but very old) form of conservatism. Harper is an Anglo-Saxon conservative: slow modest steps in any direction. He calls this "incrementalsim" but in fact it is conservatism and very much in the nature of English Canada. "Let's try this a little and see if it works."

====

I think that many commentators have missed how "conservative" this budget was. There is nothing radical.

jdobbin · January 31, 2009

Harper presents a new (but very old) form of conservatism. Harper is an Anglo-Saxon conservative: slow modest steps in any direction. He calls this "incrementalsim" but in fact it is conservatism and very much in the nature of English Canada. "Let's try this a little and see if it works."
====

I think that many commentators have missed how "conservative" this budget was. There is nothing radical.

A deficit is radical to these commentators.

punked · January 31, 2009

I am a conservative in the sense that I want to reduce government purchases in the economy and government regulation in society. The only government purchases that I want are clearly defined public goods, and the only government regulations that I want are clearly defined criminal behaviour.

Here is a question let's say you have a peanut.....no wait a meat factory. It is poorly kept and cause the meat to poison people and they die. Is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

Ok you have a toy factory and the toys are painted with toxic paint and a bunch of kids die. Is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

How about you have a power company and they don't kept their lines intact and the wind knocks out power to an area for a day on the coldest winter and an old many freezes to death is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

And so on and so on.

Regulation is about the criminal behaviour which is not clearly defined and no magic hand of the market will change those things. It just wont.

August1991 · January 31, 2009

A deficit is radical to these commentators.

If a federal government deficit is the measure of radical, then I'd say Harper is a conservative.

So-called Conservatives may have raised 'reducing government budget debt' to a fetish or shibboleth but modern economic theory hasn't.

In any normal society, some (young) people are in debt and some (older) people have savings. The older people have loans to younger people. Hence, any normal society will show a level of debt since older, rich people will be lending to younger, poor people. Such is life, in a civilized society.

Typically, any democratc government in such a society will have debt. It is obtuse to argue that such a government should aim to reduce its debt anymore than older and younger people in such a society should aim to reduce their debt, or their savings.

Of course, each young person is advised to pay down their mortgage - and lend more more to their younger children.

====

I am disheartened by such discussions. Individual behaviour is not the same as collective behaviour.

Here is a question let's say you have a peanut.....no wait a meat factory. It is poorly kept and cause the meat to poison people and they die. Is that "clearly defined criminal behaviour"?

Punked, I guess that you listen to the CBC.

In the very long term, who do you trust? Your family? Your friends? People you have learned to trust over time? Government bureaucrats?

Punked, I suggest that you take a longer view of food regulation. Maybe brand names serve a purpose.

Edited January 31, 2009 by August1991

punked · January 31, 2009

In the very long term, who do you trust? Your family? Your friends? People you have learned to trust over time? Government bureaucrats?
Punked, I suggest that you take a longer view of food regulation. Maybe brand names serve a purpose.

As far as trust goes I am going have to pick government over "magic hand of the free market".

August1991 · January 31, 2009

As far as trust goes I am going have to pick government over "magic hand of the free market".

In the question of trust, you pick an anonymous government bureaucrat over your family or friends, or even someone who has established a reputation with you.

I don't believe it.

Have you ever been to a CLSC? Have you ever been to a government office? If you have any experience with such people, as a minimum, you will ask for their card, name, phone or email. You want a personal relation.

---

Markets are different. They're anonymous - unless there's a brand name.

Edited January 31, 2009 by August1991

punked · January 31, 2009

In the question of trust, you pick an anonymous government bureaucrat over your family or friends, or even someone who has established a reputation with you.
I don't believe it.

Have you ever been to a CLSC? Have you ever been to a government office? If you have any experience with such people, as a minimum, you will ask for their card, name, phone or email. You want a personal relation.

No I picked government over "magic hand of the market"

Funny thing is the government people always want my vote and thus care if someone does or doesn't die. Although the "market" cares about money. That is why you get Toxic spills when deregulate, poison peanut butter when you let them police themselves, and economic crashes. "Magic hand of the market" is ridiculous becuase as long as people compete only a little all products can become shitty. It is called game theory and those who believe the market will sort anything out with out a push have never heard of it.

Edited January 31, 2009 by punked

August1991 · January 31, 2009

No I picked government over "magic hand of the market"

What is "government"? It must be a "government bureaucrat".

The difference between "market" and "government" really amounts to choice.

In the case of markets, you have choice. In teh case of government, you have no choice.

The question is: Is choice good? Should people be free to choose?

Edited January 31, 2009 by August1991

punked · January 31, 2009

What is "government"? It must be a "government bureaucrat"

Ummm would you like it better if I wrote all my posts with "government bureaucrat" instead? How about "evil government bureaucrat that hates free loving good people becuase all they do is take from them" should I write that instead. Your buzz words aren't necessary lets have a discussion with out them.

punked · January 31, 2009

What is "government"? It must be a "government bureaucrat".
The difference between "market" and "government" really amounts to choice.

In the case of markets, you have choice. In teh case of government, you have no choice.

The question is: Is choice good? Should people be free to choose?

You don't get a choice in the market really. It all amounts to game theory really. Everyone does the same thing they will all make profit so you 5 milk brands they each make a profit if they all charge the same and do the samething. A sixth comes in now they aren't making a profit it is in their best interest to crush the new guy, so those 5 are really one whole working together. There is no choice.

August1991 · January 31, 2009

Funny thing is the government people always want my vote and thus care if someone does or doesn't die. Although the "market" cares about money. That is why you get Toxic spills when deregulate, poison peanut butter when you let them police themselves, and economic crashes. "Magic hand of the market" is ridiculous becuase as long as people compete only a little all products can become shitty. It is called game theory and those who believe the market will sort anything out with out a push have never heard of it.

The market doesn't want your money - it wants your efforts, your time, your life.

I understand what you have written but I am too tired to refute your ideas. I'll try.

Markets work well but they are not perfect. It is for you to understand what markets are, and why they fail. As a human in this time, this is a fundamental question.

August1991 · January 31, 2009

You don't get a choice in the market really.

That is the definition of the market - choice.

punked · January 31, 2009

That is the definition of the market - choice.

Yah we could only wish. You wan gas you buy it from say Esso. Let's say everyone does over a 5 day period for some reason then that must mean all the other gas stations are Fucked? Nope not at all becuase Esso will buy their extra gas to accommodate the influx from all the other gas companies. Welcome to the "new market". It was evolved.

August1991 · January 31, 2009

Yah we could only wish. You wan gas you buy it from say Esso. Let's say everyone does over a 5 day period for some reason then that must mean all the other gas stations are Fucked? Nope not at all becuase Esso will buy their extra gas to accommodate the influx from all the other gas companies. Welcome to the "new market". It was evolved.

Punked, I think you misunderstand. The word "market" means "choice". (To me, the word "market" means more than choice - it also means that you are aware of the choices.)

If your choices are restricted, then what happens? I think that is the question of your post.

===

People who favour markets, favour choice.

Progressive Tory · January 31, 2009

I doubt any Tory MPs will vote against the budget. My feeling is that it would not be tolerated by the PMO.
There is so much anger in the west about the deficit that it will be interesting to see how many on the right start withdrawing support.

That's my point. Is Harper even in the driver's seat anymore? Six months ago Conservative MPs would have allowed anything.

My purpose with this thread is not to defend or condemn the budget, but how tough it must be for the Conservative MPs when it goes against everything they've ever believed in. Remember the Reform Party was created to oppose Mulroney's deficit spending, amoung other things.

They've already been told to put their social conservative principles on hold and buried deep. Now they're told they must accept a fiscal move that would have had them marching in the streets if it had been a Liberal budget.

My question is, knowing that, will they stick to their principles and listen to their base; or sit back and agree to anything just to stay in power? We're talking a 5 year plan, which is not a temporary situation in anyone's book. What on earth will they campaign on next election?

We're the party who allowed ourselves to be put on probation by the Liberals????

Edited January 31, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Progressive Tory · January 31, 2009

Thhird, the budget isn't bad once you look at it carefully and give it some second thought. As a spending stimulus package, it is short term and limited. As a tax cutting stimulus package, the tax cuts were announced as permanent which is both good in principle and good because it will lead to the greatest Keynesian-style stimulus.

Ok. We're not talking about whether the budget is good or bad or whether or not Colby Cash is a born again socialist.

We are discussing the Conservative Party of Canada and it's founding principles. Off the top of my head, when the Alliance and PC merged there were something like 66 Alliance MPs and 9 Progressive Conservative MPs. Many people may believe that the Party has moved to the centre, but their base is still very strong. This budget is not a Conservative Budget based on the principles of this country's conservative party.

They have to be wrestling with it. Yes Flaherty threw in tax cuts to help soften the blow, but we are talking about their founding principles If Alberta doesn't like this budget or the fact that they're on probation, they could be in trouble.

Alberta will never go Liberal, but if an alternative to the CP is presented, it could be a different story.

Progressive Tory · January 31, 2009

What is our unemployment rate again?

A recent poll showed that 1 in 4 Canadians are afraid of losing their jobs. But what the CP have to look at, again to their base, is that Albertans polled higher than the rest of Canada. 40% of Albertans are worried about their jobs.

"Albertans, whose economy has been fuelled by high oil prices, were concerned their job market was running out of gas. The poll found 40% of respondents were less confident their job was safe, compared to 14% who were more confident.... People who are less confident in where their job is, are spending less and doing less to help the economy than those who are as confident as last year or feeling more confident."

Their base doesn't like the budget.

Their base doesn't like a Conservative probation.

Their base are the most worried in Canada that their jobs are not safe.

Do they listen to their base or simply tow the party line? For Harper it's about losing his job. For cabinet ministers it's about losing their jobs. For backbenchers it's about losing their integrity.

Bryan · January 31, 2009

For Harper it's about losing his job.

Harper needs to be far more worried about his base taking his job away from him than the electorate of Canada at this point.

I was never comfortable with the merger in the first place, I thought we gave up far too much up front. Once in power, Harper moved more and more to the left. Again, I didn't like it, but CPC was the only remotely conservative option available, so like other Reformers, I went along anyway. I even defended many of the compromises as necessary to govern. Heck up until a few weeks ago I was even on board for the "as long as it hurts the Liberals, it's good for us" part of the plan.

This budget is the last straw. It's totally unacceptable, and it's a complete betrayal of all that is conservative. Keynesian spending has never worked before, if anything it made the great depression worse and longer. If there was ever a time to show true fiscal conservatism, this is it. If we can't trust a party that's named Conservative to actually be conservative when it really matters, they have no reason to exist. I'd much rather have seen us lose power than throw all of our principles away.

I don't think anything could ever get me to vote Liberal again. But if the rumblings I'm hearing about rebooting Reform are true, I'll be there in a heartbeat. In the meantime, Harper needs to be pushed out, he cannot be trusted any more.