Realistically why do Liberals need to change?

[maplesyrup]

No matter what the other political parties want, who is to stop the Liberals from operating in the new House exactly the way they want. Canadians do not want another election right now, so the parties that bring the government down, forcing another election, would be punished at the polls.

So for example, if the Conservatives want an even bigger tax cut for the rich, Martin can say screw you to Harper.

This whole scenario seems quite bizarre.

Expect left turns, Layton tells Liberals

[Bro]

The plan from Harper was to cut taxes for all Canadians,to stimulate new business and hence,more taxes from more available sources.

What salary range do you classify a rich Canadian,because the liberals and ndp must think I'm filthy rich.

[maplesyrup]

The plan from Harper was to cut taxes disproportionally for the rich. But that is not what Canadians want. They want a good health care system much more that tax reductions. It was a strange campaign. Harper's financial program was dissed by many financial analysts/institutions including the BNS.

[Bro]

BS.Canadians want a good healthcare system,the only point you are correct on.

The problem is,the liberals have a hard time after elections remembering that they said healthcare was #1.

Their priorities were,still are,and will remain,Quebec,national bilingualism,softness on crime,disregard for the working middle class,disregard for the west,and disregard for Canada's once proud place on the world stage.

[maplesyrup]

All the world's a stage, my friend.

It seems to me the Liberals can pretty well govern like thay have a majority - they will get support for their right wing policies from the Cons, and get support for their left wing ideas, if they have any, from the Bloc & the NDP. I don't know why we even bothered having the election.

[Bro]

lol. There will be no support from the conservatives,because they[the liberals] have not had a right point of view since P.E.Trudeau was elected in 1968.I'm not sure,but from what I've heard and read,Pearson hadn't

any either.

There will also be no support from the NDP either,even they aren't as far left as the liberals.

There is always Quebec ,the playground for liberal mp's and pm's, and favorite retirement home for past liberal pm's,a place where they can spend money like it was growing on taxpayer trees.

[tml13]

Harper' right wing beliefs want privatized Health Care and a bigger Army. That is just like the US. I would be the first to say that Canada's army isn't the greatest, but we don't need a big army. Canada has always been a peacekeepng country, and the Liberals will continue with that. I think that the Liberals are a strong party, but most importantly, they will protect the view of Canada.

[caesar]

Harper wanted to add dramatically to our deficit. I do appreciate that Paul Martin has been able to pay down our large deficit that Mulroney ran up.

An increased DEFENSIVE military is more the Canadian way. Canada can stay with peacekeeping forces for our international obligations. We do not require an invasion style army.

[playfullfellow]

Harper wanted to add dramatically to our deficit. I do appreciate that Paul Martin has been able to pay down our large deficit that Mulroney ran up.

Caesar, you seem to forget about what Mr. Trudeau managed to do before Mulroney. In 1968, Canada had a debt of 16.7 billion dollars. Fast forward 16 years of Trudeau management and we have 200 billion dollars debt in 1984. I do agree with you that Mulroney spent way too much money. Mulroney was also faced with high teens interest rates. At 15% interest on 200 billion is 3 billion a year alone. But, you also have to take into consideration what Trudeau did to the national debt too when you make assumptions about the financial state of Canada. It is not all Molruneys fault as some would have everyone believe, besides, the guy aint never getting into power again or have any influence in Ottawa.

[August1991]

At 15% interest on 200 billion is 3 billion a year alone.

More like $30 billion a year.

Mulroney and Michael Wilson faced those interest numbers year in, year out.

Why were interest rates high? Because of the inflationary spending of the 1960s and 1970s in both the US and Canada when Liberals and (mostly) Democrats were in power.

[Hjalmar]

Harper wanted to add dramatically to our deficit. I do appreciate that Paul Martin has been able to pay down our large deficit that Mulroney ran up.

Our debt started with PE Trudeau in 1968. This debt stood at approx $200 billion when Mulroney took over in 1984. However that debt increased from $200 billion to almost $500 billion when the Liberals took over in 1993. It had reached $585 billion when Paul Martin ended the deficit in 1997 and that debt has now been reduced by approx $50 billion.

Paul Martin should have ran his election campaign on one issue only... that being his prudent fiscal management.. I think he would have won a majority had he done so.. his strongest point by far.

[noelandmero]

Our debt started with PE Trudeau in 1968. This debt stood at approx $200 billion when Mulroney took over in 1984. However that debt increased from $200 billion to almost $500 billion when the Liberals took over in 1993. It had reached $585 billion when Paul Martin ended the deficit in 1997 and that debt has now been reduced by approx $50 billion.

Paul Martin should have ran his election campaign on one issue only... that being his prudent fiscal management.. I think he would have won a majority had he done so.. his strongest point by far.

I hate the liberals but this is a damn good point I will never understand why they did not run on this platform. There is no logical or good conservative attack on these numbers mismangement can not be used with these numbers. It can be argued the liberals are not all that responsible for the great economy the same way most economists agree clinton had nothing to to with the boom of the nineties. These arguments take a 400 page book and assume you understand economic systems good luck proving to the average person the liberals were not personally responsible it does not fit in a 30 second sound byte.

[playfullfellow]

More like $30 billion a year.

thanks for the correction August, way too many damn zeros by anyones opinion though. Thanks again and Happy Canada Day to one and all.

[takeanumber]

The electorate have forced the to change.

Just one whiff of the old ways, and the Electorate will freak.

The Eleoctorate also wants to see if the Cons can purge themselves of the radical elements in their party...which will mean that Harper himself will have to go.

It'd prefer a real moderate alternative that won't force people to conform to their religion as soon as they get into power. But you know, that might be too much to ask for.

[August1991]

I hate the liberals but this is a damn good point I will never understand why they did not run on this platform. There is no logical or good conservative attack on these numbers mismangement can not be used with these numbers. It can be argued the liberals are not all that responsible for the great economy the same way most economists agree clinton had nothing to to with the boom of the nineties. These arguments take a 400 page book and assume you understand economic systems good luck proving to the average person the liberals were not personally responsible it does not fit in a 30 second sound byte.

Exactly my feeling. The only explanation I can think of is that Martin wanted to be different from Chretien.

Incidentally, IMV, Gore should have done the same. He'd be president now.

[playfullfellow]

Politicians in general have strayed away from proving to the voters that their policies are workable and in the countries best interest. Because of so much crap from the past, if one party brings up a good thing that they did, then the other parties will list 5 things they have supposedly done wrong. Elections have become tabloid front pagers in the fact that most politicians strive to find garbage about their opponents. Ok, so if your opponent is a total liar and thief, well that should be mentioned. We have gone too far away from wanting evidence on how a party's position will benefit us as citizens and taxpayers. Most parties write down a number in the billions that they intend to spend on us but there usually is no evidence of where this money will come from. We also are expected to believe blindly that each party will spend our money wisely after we elect them with no definative proof of how the money is to spent or where it comes from. We dwelve on one or two issues each election, vote in a party and then bitch for 4-5 years on how they don't do as they promise. Maybe if we, as the voters, start demanding proof before we elect a government. We could do this with a "none of the above" area on each ballot.