If Brian Mulroney had stayed on for the 1993 election?

[Shady]

Not true at all. Chretien's legacy is entirely revamping health and social transfers, as well as turning multiple surpluses to pay down the debt. Harper's legacy, if anything, is creating tax-free savings accounts and cutting the GST. Both moves which adversely affected the federal bank account.

Is "revamping" health and social transfers code for significantly cutting? Cause that's how he "revamped" them. Aside from that, the current deficit, which may already be back to surplus, was a product of the global recession.

[cybercoma]

Harper already blew through the surpluses, as he promised to do in his 2006 campaign. Remember? The evil LPC was taxing people too heavily, so Harper was going to put an end to that. The recession came in after Harper had already begun burning through the savings.

[overthere]

If Brian Mulroney had stayed on for the 1993 election, would the old federal PC Party still be around today as a powerful national party? Let's say he fights the election in October 1993 and campaigns better than Kim Campbell did, which probably would've happened and emerged as official opposition or even with a minority government like he said he would in the Newman book (not inconceivable seeing how he was polling 25% in early 93 and could have closed the gap in an election campaign), and then resigned in 94 with Jean Charest probably taking his place as leader of the Opposition or as Prime Minister.

Do you think that would've saved the old PC Party and prevented the Reform people from sweeping Western Canada as strongly as they did and thus preventing the rise of modern Reformatories like Harper?

Campbell was a pretty weak campaigner and her gaffes like the Chretien ad and "no jobs" cost the PC party in a lot of support.

The reason Mulroney quit before the election is he knew without any doubt that his party was going to get pulverized.

Better to quit and have some poor schmuck like Campbell take the heat.

[WWWTT]

As a former PC voter, and a current conservative voter, I have noticed very little difference. But please, by all means, you far lefties can tell us how we're not represented. I'm sure you have the best intentions and seek a long running conservative elected government.

Using the Ontario pc party as the closest living example of where the federal pc would be, I have to agree with you.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Like I've already said. In my opinion, I haven't noticed much of any policy differences between the two. If you have, please state what they are, because I'm unaware of them. Unless you want me to state things I'm unaware of. If you are. Please tell me how I'd do that.

I've noticed that the current conservative party is way more anti union!

Foreign policy has also become much more aggressive with increase military spending.

Probably a half dozen more other issues if I was to spend more time articulating and research.

But ALL the parties in my opinion have changed in the last 20 years.

WWWTT

[waldo]

Look, waldo. You're a smart guy. You know how logic works. The null position doesn't prove itself. You're the one taking a stance by saying there was a change. It's on you to demonstrate that change not on others to demonstrate nothing (has changed). They demonstrate nothing by saying nothing. You support their position by failing to highlight change.

for the 3rd freakin' time... I didn't make a claim... I didn't say there was a change. Again, I asked a question of those Harper Conservative supporters stating they notice "no difference" between the (former) PC and the (current) CPC. I asked "where's the progressive side of "the current party"?" You've drawn an inference. Now if any of those guys stating they observe no difference, actually answered the question... I might be inclined to offer further comment in regards their answers.

now, since you've openly stated you believe there are differences being the 2 Conservative parties, rather than doggin my posts, why don't you step forward and relate your differences.

[August1991]

Need another poll option - "I don't care".

Or "Misses Point".

In 1993, the PCs got two seats. If Mulroney had won three seats, what's the difference?

Edited October 17, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

I asked "where's the progressive side of "the current party"?"

If, by progressive, you mean radical change: Harper got rid of the gun law and cut the GST. He transferred $100 to every family for every kid under 6 - and is about to do the same for kids under 12. Harper changed our military.

I tend to agree however that Mulroney was even more radical (progressive) than Harper. Mulroney negotiated a free trade deal with the US and radically changed our federal sales tax. Mulroney tried to change our constitution.

=====

I'm a conservative but I understand that I live in North America. I prefer Harper's style of progressivism but would prefer that he go about this in a more conservative way.

Canada is a country with many different people. At the federal level, small, simple changes are much better than big, grandiose changes.

A large ship changes direction slowly - otherwise, if the captain orders a radical turn, it capsizes and sinks.

Edited October 17, 2014 by August1991

[poochies]

I dont think it would have a changed anything.

[Topaz]

Most of the voters, voted against Mulroney because of the Free Trade agreement and one main difference between the PC and the Cons is the ENVIRONMENT. Mulroney did care and Harper only cares when he has to, like election time.

[waldingoman]

Muldoon headed for the exits before the doo-doo hit the fan. Lying' Brian's' staying would not have helped him or anyone. He might have lost his riding the way Campbell did.

[Bryan]

People forget that The PCs were doing very well in the polls at the beginning of the 93 election. It wasn't until Campbell insisted she was not going to talk about policy during a campaign, and ran the ad mocking Chretien's facial paralysis that PC support dropped like a rock.

[Topaz]

Why does Harper use Q-cards when he goes to a news interview? I watched him today and there were the cards and he was reading. I would think the PMO has control over the questions asked so why the cards? I don't remember Mulroney or any other PM using them.

[Keepitsimple]

Why does Harper use Q-cards when he goes to a news interview? I watched him today and there were the cards and he was reading. I would think the PMO has control over the questions asked so why the cards? I don't remember Mulroney or any other PM using them.

I'm with you Topaz. Harper is just a puppet for the PMO backroom boys. He can't answer questions without scripted talking points....and you're also right that none of the other PMs needed such guidance. That's just one of the reasons why my vote is going to Justin Trudeau, It's obvious that he has a background in motivational speaking from his speaking engagements. That, coupled with his deep grasp of the issues will sink Harper. He'll cream old Stevie boy in the debates........Harper won't know what hit him.

[On Guard for Thee]

Why does Harper use Q-cards when he goes to a news interview? I watched him today and there were the cards and he was reading. I would think the PMO has control over the questions asked so why the cards? I don't remember Mulroney or any other PM using them.

I suspect Harper has come to the conclusion that elected reps. who spoke their actual minds (you remember those days?) actually made mistakes from time to time and they may have lost votes having done so. Harper is that power hungry that he refuses to let any of his fold actually speak outside of their talkining points schedule. OK so they come off sounding like drones, and sometimes like idiots (ala Calandra) but he seems to think there is a better chance of keeping voters. Perhaps it will work. Perhaps conservative voters don't mind their leader being dubbed a dictator by some of his own cabinet. I rather prefer people who can think on their feet.

[overthere]

Chretien Did very little. if you want to put it that way though, Harper eliminated most of the ability to form income trusts protecting the federal treasury, and revamped federal pension plans to make personal transfers sustainable. He also steered the government through the worst economic recession in almost 100 years, bringing the government back to surplus. Spending and taxes are much lower as a percentage of GDP, and I like that, as do many. There's always multiple angles.

Good post, there are certainly multiple angles.

A large surplus does not necessarily indicate excellent management, it may also indicate overtaxation.

Sound fiscal management in a time of surplus must always contain an element of debt repayment, not just servicing of interest costs.

In good times, what I'd like to see is a balanced budget, with a specific amount of debt repayment. In tough times, a balanced budget with no increase in debt and existing debt serviced.

The 800 pound gorilla that is rarely noted is interest rates. Chretien gained big advantage on debt service costs from declining rates through the 90s, an advanatage enjoyed by govts of the last 20 years. There will be a reckoning if they increase, which is forecast by many.

[Topaz]

The Tories may not have that 6.2 Billion surplus by the time the virus and the terrorists get under control. I also, think that when there is a surplus, it should go where it help more Canadians , rather that the party in power giving it to their supporters at election time.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

The Tories may not have that 6.2 Billion surplus by the time the virus and the terrorists get under control. I also, think that when there is a surplus, it should go where it help more Canadians , rather that the party in power giving it to their supporters at election time.

Would you say the same if Liberals or NDP were in Government and conservatives (note small c) wanted tax cuts but they actually increase taxes.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

Quebec Separatism and Western Alienation were too powerful for the PCs to survive the 93 election, regardless of who would have been party leader, that's why Mulroney left, the writing was on the wall.

Luckily both have died down a bit, but I wonder if western alienation will come back to the forefront if we see a Liberal majority under Trudeau. He has publicly stated he believes Quebecois are better fit to govern than Albertans.

[August1991]

Quebec Separatism and Western Alienation were too powerful for the PCs to survive the 93 election, regardless of who would have been party leader, that's why Mulroney left, the writing was on the wall.

Luckily both have died down a bit, but I wonder if western alienation will come back to the forefront if we see a Liberal majority under Trudeau. He has publicly stated he believes Quebecois are better fit to govern than Albertans.

IMHO, you raise a good point, PCC. We hear little of "Quebec Separatism" and "Western Alienation" nowadays.

Under Trudeau Snr, these were constant refrains.

I happen to think that Canadian federal politics are not based on ideology (left/right) but rather regionalism. (As one American politician stated, "All politics are local.")

The English-media in Toronto (and French-media in the Plateau) generally view themselves as tolerant, diverse and view Harper as an ignorant neanderthal bigot. Yet, Harper has managed to make Canada a functioning federal country where different regions can live in peace with one another.

Edited November 18, 2014 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

Yet, Harper has managed to make Canada a functioning federal country where different regions can live in peace with one another.

How ? By uniting all of them against the common enemy - Toronto. And all it stands for.

But... it's his HOME town !

He's even a Leafs fan ! Does that not make one's brain twist a little bit inside one's skull ?

Oh Canada...

[Keepitsimple]

How ? By uniting all of them against the common enemy - Toronto. And all it stands for.

But... it's his HOME town !

He's even a Leafs fan ! Does that not make one's brain twist a little bit inside one's skull ?

Oh Canada...

As for Toronto - both Federally and Provincially:

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23:34

Edited November 18, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[PIK]

At least Michael Toronto good for something.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

IMHO, you raise a good point, PCC. We hear little of "Quebec Separatism" and "Western Alienation" nowadays.

Under Trudeau Snr, these were constant refrains.

I happen to think that Canadian federal politics are not based on ideology (left/right) but rather regionalism. (As one American politician stated, "All politics are local.")

The English-media in Toronto (and French-media in the Plateau) generally view themselves as tolerant, diverse and view Harper as an ignorant neanderthal bigot. Yet, Harper has managed to make Canada a functioning federal country where different regions can live in peace with one another.

Yeah during the late 80's and into the late 90's those were so significant of issues it's the reason Canadian politics was so crazy, the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party were founded on those issues.

[ProudCanadianConservative]

How ? By uniting all of them against the common enemy - Toronto. And all it stands for.

But... it's his HOME town !

He's even a Leafs fan ! Does that not make one's brain twist a little bit inside one's skull ?

Oh Canada...

He wouldn't have won suburban Toronto if he wanted the country against Toronto.