One of the reasons I won't be voting for Harper: Economic record

[marcus]

Although Conservatives like to drone on like robots about how Stephen Harper is a "steady hand on the wheel" of the economy, that myth is increasingly hard to square with reality.

Not only does a recent poll suggest Harper's reputation as a competent manager of the economy has plummeted, a new analysis shows Harper with the worst economic record of any Canadian Prime Minister since the end of the Second World War.

Here is how Harper's economic record fares against the others:

• Annual Average Growth in Employment: 1% - Worst
• Average Annual Real GDP Growth: 1.6% - Worst
  
• Change in Employment Rate: -1.4 pts - Second worst
  
• Average Unemployment Rate: 7.1 - Sixth of Nine
  
• Labour Force Participation Rate: -1% - Worst
  
• Average Annual Growth in Youth Employment: -0.3% - Second worst
  
• Index of Job Quality: 87.2 - Worst
  
• Average Annual Growth in Real GDP per Capita: 0.4% - Worst
  
• Average Annual Growth in Real Business Non-Residential Capital Spending: 2.5% - Second worst
  
• Average Annual Growth in Real Exports: 0.3% - Worst
  
• Average Annual Growth in Labour Productivity: 0.9% - Second worst
  
• Average Annual Growth of Real Personal Income per Capita: 0.9% - Second worst
  
• Change in Net Federal Debt as Share of GDP: 0.9% - Sixth of Nine

This statistical review confirms that it is far-fetched to suggest that Canada’s economy has been well-managed during the Harper government’s time in office. To the contrary, there is no other time in Canada’s postwar economic history in which Canada’s performance has performed worse than it did under the Harper government.

Edited August 5, 2015 by marcus

[sharkman]

Your stats are cherry picked, skewed, and not quantified. Make a serious attempt at least, but other than that, vote for whomever you choose. Lets face it though, no one's surprised about your hate on for Harper since you've been a hard left wing activist.

Edited August 5, 2015 by sharkman

[marcus]

Your stats are cherry picked, skewed, and not quantified. Make a serious attempt at least

Do let me know how they are skewed.

[jacee]

Your stats are cherry picked, skewed, and not quantified. Make a serious attempt at least, but other than that, vote for whomever you choose. Lets face it though, no one's surprised about your hate on for Harper since you've been a hard left wing activist.

Where are your stats?

See the quantification to the left of the red type.

Anybody in their right mind has a hate on for Harper.

Not cherry picked at all:

Together these 16 indicators provide a composite portrait of overall

economic performance and stability under each postwar government.

For 7 of the 16 indicators, the Harper government ranks last (or tied for last) among the

nine postwar Prime Ministers. In 6 more cases, it ranks (or is tied) second-last. Among the

remaining 3 indicators, the Harper government never ranks higher than sixth out of nine.

Considering the overall average ranking of each Prime Minister (across all 16 indicators),

the Harper government ranks last among the nine postwar governments, and by a wide

margin falling well behind the second-worst government, which was the Mulroney

Conservative regime of 1984-93.

.

Edited August 5, 2015 by jacee

[drummindiver]

Lol

A Unifor AND Rabble.ca piece showing zero links or comments on how/where they got their information. Hardly. Credible unbiased piece of reporting. Let's not forget also that Harper guided us through the worst economic disaster in the history of the entire planet, and your assertions Re less than laughable.

[cybercoma]

Lol

A Unifor AND Rabble.ca piece showing zero links or comments on how/where they got their information.

All of this information is readily available from Statistics Canada and the Department of Finance, if you care to refute the number as opposed to the source. Edited August 5, 2015 by cybercoma

[Moonlight Graham]

I'm amazed how much control most people think the Harper gov has had on the global economy and global oil prices.

Harper had nothing to do with the US housing market collapse and mortgage crisis and ensuing recession, and nothing to do with Greece's crisis in the Eurozone etc. After only 2 years in office in a minority gov, Harper obviously had next to nothing if anything at all to do with providing the regulations in our banking system and real estate market that prevented us from going down the same path as the US. Apparently the international scene thought Jim Flaherty was some kind of god for "steering us so safely though the recession", when all we did was take on debt to spend stimulus, which most every other economy in the west did (Keynesian economic management 101), and have been doing since after WWII during recessions. People also blame Harper gov for the debt we took on during the recession to provide stimulus, even though it was par economic policy. If Chretien's Liberals governed during the recession they would have done very similar.

Of course, people now blame the Harper gov for the current economic slide, when they've had next to nothing to do with the plunging global price of crude oil.

[cybercoma]

Harper did have a lot to do with putting all of his eggs in one volatile basket and burning through surpluses and a contingency fund before the recession even hit. He also had a lot to do with slashing federal revenues and continuing to spend like a drunken sailor, in order to buy votes. Harper had control over a lot of things and just about every step of the way made the absolute worst decisions he could.

Edited August 5, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

More importantly, Harper has done absolutely nothing to bring openness and accountability to Ottawa. That was his major plank in 2006. You'll notice now his rallying cry is "Vote for me for more of the same!" It's just too bad it's more of the same pork barrelling and self-service garbage that people hated about the Liberals.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm amazed how much control most people think the Harper gov has had on the global economy and global oil prices.

Harper had nothing to do with the US housing market collapse and mortgage crisis and ensuing recession, and nothing to do with Greece's crisis in the Eurozone etc. After only 2 years in office in a minority gov, Harper obviously had next to nothing if anything at all to do with providing the regulations in our banking system and real estate market that prevented us from going down the same path as the US. Apparently the international scene thought Jim Flaherty was some kind of god for "steering us so safely though the recession", when all we did was take on debt to spend stimulus, which most every other economy in the west did (Keynesian economic management 101), and have been doing since after WWII during recessions. People also blame Harper gov for the debt we took on during the recession to provide stimulus, even though it was par economic policy. If Chretien's Liberals governed during the recession they would have done very similar.

Of course, people now blame the Harper gov for the current economic slide, when they've had next to nothing to do with the plunging global price of crude oil.

That's pretty well true - he shouldn't be taking too much credit - or fault. He has for the most part, done what I look for in a government when managing the economy - and that is "do no harm".

As a shining example of do no harm, many on the Left have been clamouring for years for Cap & Trade or a price on carbon - so that Canada could "show leadership in the fight against Climate Change". Any rational person knows that such a move without the US following would directly affect our trade and economy with our largest trading partner. The Conservatives once had Cap & Trade as a potential policy - but only because the US was intending the same.....but as we've seen, after all these years, it's still only talk in the US. Do no harm.

[Topaz]

Harper and all his supporters always say it wasn't harper fault for the economy because its a "global" problem and yet, when a province such as Ontario or Alberta now, uses the same reasoning, they are blasted by bad management, Harper and his gang can't have it both ways, although Harper is king of not being responsible for anything bad.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper and all his supporters always say it wasn't harper fault for the economy because its a "global" problem and yet, when a province such as Ontario or Alberta now, uses the same reasoning, they are blasted by bad management, Harper and his gang can't have it both ways, although Harper is king of not being responsible for anything bad.

Don't know yet about Alberta/Notley - but Wynne deserves to be blasted.....she initiated a relationship "chill" by publicly saying that Harper "smirked" in their initial private session, has been rude and outspoken in her shameless shilling for Justin Trudeau - where Premiers have almost always been neutral....but most importantly, has resided over the most corrupt, incompetent government in the history of Ontario - if not Canada. The LIberal Party Green Energy fiasco alone has chased what's left of the manufacturing industry away - and their unwillingness to invest in Ring of Fire infrastructure has scared off investors. Wynne deserves more than being blasted.

[Shady]

The pre-global recession numbers look much different than the post-global recession numbers. Perhaps some type of indication should be made to have an intellectually honest discussion. Also, referencing the extremelyl weak Obama economy should be noted.

[Accountability Now]

He also had a lot to do with slashing federal revenues and continuing to spend like a drunken sailor, in order to buy votes. Harper had control over a lot of things and just about every step of the way made the absolute worst decisions he could.

I guess he could have reneged on his election promise of cutting the GST much like Cretien did when he promised to get rid of the GST in order for him to get elected.

[cybercoma]

I guess he could have reneged on his election promise of cutting the GST much like Cretien did when he promised to get rid of the GST in order for him to get elected.

He could have not made the promise in the first place and actually act like he earned his economics degree.

[marcus]

Stephen Harper has put all his eggs in one basket. That's the sign of a bad economic manager and the results are in. This is not the first time oil prices have gone down. This is not the first time there has been economic downturns in other parts of the world.

Harper has been in office for 9 years. How much longer are the unconditional supporters are going to blame the worst economic record of any prime minister on anything but Harper himself?

From an article in December 2014:

• Canada's economy three times as exposed to oil price changes as in 1998 collapse
• Lower gas prices will put $10 billion extra in Canadian consumers' hands
• Loonie to hit 81 cents U.S.

Canada’s growing reliance on oil exports in recent years has made the country “much more exposed” to the collapse in oil prices than it was in previous downturns, say economists at CIBC World Markets.

“Canada was not nearly the net oil exporter it is today during either the supply-side price correction of the 1980s, or the next decade’s Asian crisis-inspired jolt,” the economists said.

When the Asian financial crisis pulled oil prices down in 1998, oil production accounted for about 3 per cent of GDP. Today, it accounts for nearly 9 per cent, CIBC's data shows.

Harper did not have to push our reliance on oil to this point. But he did and we're seeing the result of his mismanagement. This is why he should be scrutinized for it.

[Smallc]

Stephen Harper has put all his eggs in one basket.

I hear this over and over again, but there's no evidence for it.

[marcus]

I hear this over and over again, but there's no evidence for it.

It was mentioned in the post you partly quoted:

When the Asian financial crisis pulled oil prices down in 1998, oil production accounted for about 3 per cent of GDP. Today, it accounts for nearly 9 per cent, CIBC's data shows.

The Harper government has had the lowest annual growth in exports:

Average Annual Growth in Real Exports: 0.3% - Worst

Every economic statistic shows that his economic record should not be the reason one should vote for him.

Edited August 5, 2015 by marcus

[Smallc]

It was mentioned in the post you partly quoted:

When the Asian financial crisis pulled oil prices down in 1998, oil production accounted for about 3 per cent of GDP. Today, it accounts for nearly 9 per cent, CIBC's data shows.

Given that natural resources are under the control of the provincial government, and given that the Liberals were in charge for 8 of the years from 1998 until now, that doesn't prove your point.

[Argus]

Harper and all his supporters always say it wasn't harper fault for the economy because its a "global" problem and yet, when a province such as Ontario or Alberta now, uses the same reasoning, they are blasted by bad management, Harper and his gang can't have it both ways, although Harper is king of not being responsible for anything bad.

It wasn't the global economy which caused Ontario's Liberal government to increase spending and taxes so much over the past ten years. Nor was it the global economy which caused them to go all gung ho for green energy, resulting in Ontario's power costs skyrocketing. Ontario now has the most expensive power rates in North America, double its neighours. What do you think that does to manufacturing?

[Argus]

Stephen Harper has put all his eggs in one basket. That's the sign of a bad economic manager an

I hear this from the Left all the time, as if Harper made a selection about what type of industry Canada would have.

The reason so much of our economy is based on oil is because that was what was working. Other commodities like mining and forestry have been depressed for the last several years because of China. As for manufacturing, hey, when you can get cheaper power and workers in Mexico, why make it here?

]When the Asian financial crisis pulled oil prices down in 1998, oil production accounted for about 3 per cent of GDP. Today, it accounts for nearly 9 per cent, CIBC's data shows.

So you're blaming Harper because of the oil industry expansion?! With oil at over $100 a barrel of course the oil industry expanded!

Harper did not have to push our reliance on oil to this point. But he did and we're seeing the result of his mismanagement.

He did? How did he do that?

[WIP]

Harper did have a lot to do with putting all of his eggs in one volatile basket and burning through surpluses and a contingency fund before the recession even hit. He also had a lot to do with slashing federal revenues and continuing to spend like a drunken sailor, in order to buy votes. Harper had control over a lot of things and just about every step of the way made the absolute worst decisions he could.

To me, that's why Harper's apologists don't get to just do the lament about falling oil prices! He was the one who banked on oil at $100 a barrel when he started his strategy of big tarsands and pipeline expansions. If it didn't work out for him, that says lots about his economic leadership abilities we hear so much of from rightwing sources!

[Smallc]

He was the one who banked on oil at $100 a barrel when he started his strategy of big tarsands and pipeline expansions.

I didn't realize he was in control of private pipeline and oil companies.

[marcus]

Given that natural resources are under the control of the provincial government, and given that the Liberals were in charge for 8 of the years from 1998 until now, that doesn't prove your point.

You are telling me that Harper has not been pushing oil since he came to power? It's all the provinces' doing? You are in denial.

[Accountability Now]

He could have not made the promise in the first place and actually act like he earned his economics degree.

He could have not promised a lot of things but he did promise it and carried through which played a part in him getting elected. At least he carried through on his promise unlike Cretien.

Harper didn't just earn a degree, he earned a masters degree in economics. Which is why he didn't make outlandish promises to cut the GST altogether unlike his predecessor.