Canada Needs the Old Liberal Party

[Argus]

You mean the Right is responsible for all this government spending?

If by that you mean the threat of political losses to the right finally provoked the Liberals pulling their snouts out of the trough and spending money, then I suppose.

But thanks for making my point. By all appearances, Chretien and Martin cut government spending.

Well if we're to take your position from your first statement then the Right was also responsible for the cuts to spending by not putting any political pressure on the government. By being in dissaray they allowed the government to sit around doing nothing, and thus money was saved.

Right, it's all Quebec's fault.

Yes, as a matter of fact. Or are there other provinces which send dozens of separatist MPs to Ottawa every election?

Who cares how or why Chretien/Harper became PM. To me, there is simply one question. I want governments to spend less money. I want a PM (and Finance Minister) who can say NO! So far, Harper and Flaherty keep saying yes. Martin and Chretien had the courage/majority to say no.

You mean they had the majority. It takes no courage to say no when there's no political threat. But your hope of majority governments is pretty much just nostalgia. As long as Quebec continues to send 50 or so BQ to Ottawa every election it is extremely unlikely we will see another majority government any time soon.

[Moonbox]

As a percentage of GDP (and possibly spending), the current deficit is much smaller. When the Liberal's cut, they cut everything, from the civil service to the CBC, because there was no other way to find that much money.

The Liberals cut most of their expenses through transfer payments. They left the provinces hanging so guys like Bob Rae and Mike Harris looking like the villains. They were the ones who had to make the difficult decisions.

Canada is a much different place today with a far more solid fiscal framework and a far larger economy. That makes the current situation easier to handle.

Much of the Liberal's success in the 90's and 2000's is also due to a pretty much 10 year long unprecedented economic boom. I'll give them credit for at least not blowing all the extra revenues, but let's be honest in our praise towards Paul Martin and Chretien.

A monkey with his thumb up his butt could have made the books look good back then.

[Keepitsimple]

well..... either:

- the Harper Conservatives embraced a "liberal principle" that in bad times governments can reverse economic decline by shoveling money into the private sector... and if the Harper Conservatives willingly took this course, then they simply repudiated fiscal theories they so zealously presume to stand for, rejecting smaller government, opposition to deficits, market economics, etc.

or

- the Harper Conservatives brought forward a so-called "Liberal budget" because it was their only recourse to hold onto power... that for political expedience sake they concluded that the budget was not Conservative worthy, that it was bad for Canada... yet, they brought it in anyway!

which was it?

None of the above. First of all, today's Liberals have no principles. Yours is a false choice. There's a time and place for almost everything. We hadn't seen an economic perfect storm like this since the Great Depression. They didn't "embrace a Liberal principle". They just did the right thing - as did almost all other countries.....and when we clearly get out of the woods, Conservatives will continue their slow, steady, incremental march towards giving the provinces more autonomy and making the division of powers much more defined - as laid out in our Constitution. In doing so, the Federal Government will probably not shrink - but it will stop growing through attrition and a retrenchment in their core responsibilities. This is not 30 or 40 years ago - the provinces have grown up - they are mature.....and very capable of delivering entire services in their areas of juristiction.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[nicky10013]

None of the above. First of all, today's Liberals have no principles. Yours is a false choice. There's a time and place for almost everything. We hadn't seen an economic perfect storm like this since the Great Depression. They didn't "embrace a Liberal principle". They just did the right thing - as did almost all other countries.....and when we clearly get out of the woods, Conservatives will continue their slow, steady, incremental march towards giving the provinces more autonomy and making the division of powers much more defined - as laid out in our Constitution. In doing so, the Federal Government will probably not shrink - but it will stop growing through attrition and a retrenchment in their core responsibilities. This is not 30 or 40 years ago - the provinces have grown up - they are mature.....and very capable of delivering entire services in their areas of juristiction.

Yours is a pretty rosy outlook on what happened. Harper had to be forced into stimulus, to which the PBO has now said there was no effect because they didn't get ANY money out on time. Furthermore, even before that, the so-called "economist" ran a campaign on Canada not being affected by the recession. So, in my opinion those arguments ring hollow.

Furthermore, I think it's fairly offensive and small minded to claim that Liberals have no principle. Since when isn't pragmatism a principle? Is it really so hard for people to attach to a party which detaches from the usual left-right ideological banter that goes on? In the end, whether people or see it or not, that's where the party lies. As the OP said, fiscally conservative, socially liberal. I personally don't find intransigence in the face of ideology to be a particularly endearing leadership trait as some certainly do. I want a party that recognizes the reality of our socio-political situation, organizes the facts and makes decisions in terms of what's proven to work not only here in Canada but abroad. Those answers can shift, but then again why shouldn't government shift a long with that? Here, changing a position is seen as weakness, yet it may just be the realization that hey, something might work better. That's not weakness, it's pragmatism in trying to do what's best for the most Canadians. Whether people want to call that a lack of principle or not, that's what I want to see in a government. Frankly, who is closer to that than the Liberal Party? Certainly not the NDP or the Conservatives.

Edited May 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[punked]

The Liberals cut most of their expenses through transfer payments. They left the provinces hanging so guys like Bob Rae and Mike Harris looking like the villains. They were the ones who had to make the difficult decisions.

Much of the Liberal's success in the 90's and 2000's is also due to a pretty much 10 year long unprecedented economic boom. I'll give them credit for at least not blowing all the extra revenues, but let's be honest in our praise towards Paul Martin and Chretien.

A monkey with his thumb up his butt could have made the books look good back then.

They actually didn't cut anything it was more of a freeze across the board and a cut to transfer payments. Then to pay off Debt they stole the money out of the EI fund so now when the government has to pay that EI they must borrow to pay it. It was just all a shell game nothing else. They didn't cut anything, they downloaded debt, and moved money from one fund to another. Liberal economics for you.

[Smallc]

They actually didn't cut anything it was more of a freeze across the board and a cut to transfer payments.

That's not true. They cut everything, from the military, to the CBC, to the civil service. Economists today pretty much all say that it was the right thing to do, and it had to be done. It has put us in a much better position than other countries going forward.

[Smallc]

Much of the Liberal's success in the 90's and 2000's is also due to a pretty much 10 year long unprecedented economic boom. I'll give them credit for at least not blowing all the extra revenues, but let's be honest in our praise towards Paul Martin and Chretien.

I am being honest. You aren't. I heard an economist say the other day that we've had 3 really good major finance ministers. One brought in the GST, one eliminated the deficit, and one cut corporate taxes making Canada one of the most competitive places in the world to do business. All of these things have taken great courage, and we're better off because of them.

[Keepitsimple]

Furthermore, I think it's fairly offensive and small minded to claim that Liberals have no principle. Since when isn't pragmatism a principle? Is it really so hard for people to attach to a party which detaches from the usual left-right ideological banter that goes on?

I said the current Liberal Party has no principles. Liberals did have principles at one time - and yes they were pragmatists - and as with any party in power, that pragmatism can be shaped to its political advantage. The loss of Liberal principles began with the internal strife between Chretien and Martin, followed by Martin's "everything's a priority dithering" and his maniacal attempt to hang onto power (Conservatives far right, soldiers in the streets, won't recognize Canada, etc). That was followed by the Dion era that saw the continued strife between Rae and Ignatieff leading to Dion's debacle. In truth, Dion was a man of principle - but nobody wanted to follow him and the party eventually went loooking for an opportunity to boot him out. And now we have Ignatieff - who simply doesn't know Canada or politics in general. And the knives are coming out again. You're taking offense to a reality.

[M.Dancer]

Since technically we the people control the Bank Of Canada, why don't we try not charging interest on the national debt. Why would we want to continuously put ourselves into more and more debt.

Because our debt is not held by the bank of Canada, but in bonds (savings and otherwise)that you or I own and through loans.

This is why your ideas sound silly, you haven't finished high school economics yet.

[PIK]

Come on people ,we owed something like 16B left over from the war and trudeau ran it up to 200b and the last budget mulroney had ,I think showed a small surplus.Chretien knew how to win elections just did not understand running a country. He paid off the debt by down loading, UI fund PS pension fund and never spent a dime on the country. That is like putting every cent on the morgtage and none on the house ,so when the morgtage is paid ,you have to remorgtage to repair everything.

[waldo]

well..... either:

- the Harper Conservatives embraced a "

liberal

principle" that in bad times governments can reverse economic decline by shoveling money into the private sector... and if the Harper Conservatives willingly took this course, then they simply repudiated fiscal theories they so zealously presume to stand for, rejecting smaller government, opposition to deficits, market economics, etc.

or

- the Harper Conservatives brought forward a so-called "Liberal budget" because it was their only recourse to hold onto power... that for political expedience sake they concluded that the budget was not Conservative worthy, that it was bad for Canada... yet, they brought it in anyway!

which was it?

None of the above. First of all, today's Liberals have no principles. Yours is a false choice.

never let reading comprehension get in the way of extreme Conservative partisans, hey Simple?

[Smallc]

Come on people ,we owed something like 16B left over from the war and trudeau ran it up to 200b and the last budget mulroney had ,I think showed a small surplus.

No, it didn't.

Chretien knew how to win elections just did not understand running a country.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have won elections.

[Timothy17]

Harper's bailout is still conservative by other countries' standards. Greece is getting over 100 billion dollars, slashing public sector services and all of this for a country with 1/3rd our population.

Frankly, Harper would be wise to keep investing in Canada while maintaing social conservativism. We need energy independance, we need to start building our military equipment here at home. We can and should expand infrastructure like public transit and high-speed rail. All of this is nation-building 101 and produces good careers for the highly educated and good jobs for the average worker. It has secondary benefits for the private sector too, whether it's new technology or improved efficiency allowing local companies to compete better.

The 90's liberals need to take a big chunk out of the NDP and Greens while courting the fiscally conservative. That would gain them the government but it wouldn't gain Canada much, in my opinion.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Timothy17

[PIK]

No, it didn't.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have won elections.

The right was split, and chretien knew it and used it, it had nothing to do with running the country.

[Smallc]

The right was split, and chretien knew it and used it, it had nothing to do with running the country.

And now the left is split...yet Harper can't get a majority. Spin, spin, spin all you want. Chretien was popular and remains popular.

[punked]

And now the left is split...yet Harper can't get a majority. Spin, spin, spin all you want. Chretien was popular and remains popular.

The left isn't split, there is one left party unless we talk about Quebec. There are two in the middle, and the Conservatives on the right.

[Smallc]

The left isn't split, there is one left party unless we talk about Quebec. There are two in the middle, and the Conservatives on the right.

Ummm....no. The Liberals are centre to centre left. You don't think so, because you're quite left.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Smallc

[jbg]

I miss Cretien too. If you want a fscally responsible socially liberal government, Jack Layton has one waiting in the wings. The New NDP is a lot like the old liberal party, that is why I WAS a Liberal and NOW I AM a New Democrat.

Do you have proof? Well a proof is a proof.

[DrGreenthumb]

Frankly, Harper would be wise to keep investing in Canada while maintaing social conservativism.

Social Conservatism is just another way of saying religious prejudice. Social Conservatism is a disease, and a centre left coalition is the cure.

[Argus]

No, it didn't.

No, but Mulroney did get the budget to the point where, were it not for the big debt payments on Trudeau's debt, he would have balanced it.

If he didn't, he wouldn't have won elections.

The circumstances were such that either Dion or Ignatieff would have had whopping big majorities, too.

[Argus]

And now the left is split...yet Harper can't get a majority. Spin, spin, spin all you want. Chretien was popular and remains popular.

The insistance of people in wanting to lump the Liberals in with the NDP as "the left" goes against the continued insistance by Liberals that they're actually the centre,does it not?

[Wild Bill]

Social Conservatism is just another way of saying religious prejudice. Social Conservatism is a disease, and a centre left coalition is the cure.

You are making an assumption, Dr. The right is far more than just social conservatives. To a Libertarian like myself, the Left is a worse disease!

In all these years the Left has never come up with a working definition of how money is actually earned or created. They are all about wealth distribution, which means in order to distribute it they have to take it from someone.

Since there are so many, many more working people than rich corporations even though working people make far less even simple math shows that together they offer FAR more income to be taxed than the rich! You could take ALL of the rich and the corporations' money and it still would be nowhere near as much as you can pick from the working man's pocket!

It's just like the old story of the Little Red Hen, on a grander scale.

If Canada was ever ruled for too long by a centre left coalition I would begin to fear for my children's future, to the point where I would consider having my family escape such a regime!

[Argus]

And now the left is split...yet Harper can't get a majority. Spin, spin, spin all you want. Chretien was popular and remains popular.

Chretien was never popular. A sheepdog would have won in those circumstances. Chretien was and remains a crooked, venal, corrupt man whose only interest was in his own welfare and that of his party. His every political move while in office was directed with only one goal in mind and that was enriching himself in some way. There is not a single flaw in Harper that current liberals whine about which was not quite obviously present in Chretien, and usually to a much worse degree.

[wyly]

And now the left is split...yet Harper can't get a majority. Spin, spin, spin all you want. Chretien was popular and remains popular.

the left hasn't really split...the BQ is what has hurt the Liberals...

[wyly]

You are making an assumption, Dr. The right is far more than just social conservatives. To a Libertarian like myself, the Left is a worse disease!

If Canada was ever ruled for too long by a centre left coalition I would begin to fear for my children's future, to the point where I would consider having my family escape such a regime!

left leaning socialists don't take away personal freedoms, leftist socialists are about limiting corporate freedoms...restricting personal freedoms has always been the agenda of the social conservatives while giving unrestricted freedoms to corporate interests...personal freedom trumps corporate freedom IMO

...if you prefer living in a theocracy I wish you well...