Jump to content

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


marcus

Recommended Posts

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 by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by sharkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by marcus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :rolleyes:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By Zeitgeist
      After three months of distance learning that saw low student participation and put parents in the impossible position of teaching their kids while trying to work from home, the Province of Ontario is now proposing three options for September: return of all students to daily school with careful health hygiene, 100% distance learning, or a hybrid that divides all students into two cohorts that attend on alternate days/weeks.  While it looks like 100% distance learning is off the table unless there's a big surge of Covid-19 cases or a local outbreak, the hybrid model seems to be the one being promoted by the Province.  I believe this would be disastrous for both education and the economy.
      There's no way to get workplaces up and running on a full-time basis if parents cannot do their work without having to take care of their children at the same time.  A part-time return to school would put working parents, including educators, in a very compromising position, having to either watch their children for half of the work week while trying to do their jobs or scramble to find daycare at the same time as thousands of other parents.  Such a plan would not be safer than full-time school for students, as many of these children would be in daycares with students from multiple schools, presenting a greater health risk than having students attend one facility with the same children all week.
      The poorest families with the most precarious employment would be hardest hit by a part-time school schedule, having to pay for daycare or make the choice of risking losing their jobs in order to take care of their kids.  We know that a learning model that is exclusively distance-learning from home is bad for student engagement, socialization, and education outcomes.  We also know that having everyone return to school in a safe way than includes the necessary social distancing is a challenge without reducing class sizes and ensuring there is additional classroom space in schools.  However, this can be done without substantial new hiring or budgetary increases.
      We need to accept a few conditions in order to make daily return to school possible.  I propose, for staffing reasons, that non-classroom teachers (librarians, planning time teachers, French as a second language teachers, and a proportion of special education teaching staff) become regular classroom teachers throughout the remainder of the pandemic, so that class sizes can be reduced.  While this may reduce the number of special education teachers available to provide segregated classes for special needs students, we were moving to a more inclusive special education model and classroom teachers will be better positioned to support special needs students with smaller class sizes. 
      In order to have this kind of schedule, certain curriculum will have to be provided online, such as FSL.  However, it would protect on-site learning for the core curricula of literacy, numeracy, science, and even geography and history (Social Studies).  Phys. Ed would be taught within the classroom or outside where possible.  This schedule requires that teachers take their planning time at home, as teachers would not be getting their own planning time coverage from non-classroom planning time teachers during the school day.  The planning time and FSL teachers would teach regular classes.
      This schedule would shorten the school day, not only because of the planning time teachers would be taking at home, but also because this shorter school day eliminates the need for an afternoon recess, and for safety reasons, the lunch hour should be shortened, probably to 30 or 40 minutes.  Unstructured periods like recess provide too much opportunity for breaking social distancing guidelines.  Reducing recess time doesn’t impact instructional time.  Shorter recesses could be taken in the regular classroom.  Teachers could take their classes outside as long as classes don’t combine.
      Another sticking point for having all students in elementary schools at the same time is lack of space for social distancing, especially if class sizes are capped at an arbitrary number of, say, 15.  If non-classroom teachers’ rooms are freed up (libraries, gyms, conference rooms, etc.), there will be additional spaces available for classes.  There should not be an arbitrary class size cap, but rather a formula of students to square footage, so that social distancing is maintained no matter the class size.  For example, a class of 28 students could easily be accommodated in a library or gym.  Most elementary schools would be able to safely social distance all of their students if all of their available school spaces were used and non-classroom teachers took regular classes.  In exceptional circumstances, some classes would have to be relocated to other schools, board-owned facilities, or leased facilities (adult-learning centres, high schools, banquet halls or sports facilities that cannot open until the final phase of reopening, etc.).
      School boards are able to implement such measures if they are given some basic criteria to follow, and they can do this without increasing budgets, as long as there is flexibility in allocations.  If parents were shown such a plan and assured that social distancing and the necessary cleaning and safety measures will be taken, most students would return to school on a full-time basis, albeit with a shorter school day. 
      It's also advisable for staffing purposes to get a short-term commitment from parents as to whether or not they intend to send their children to school, for a time frame of say 2-3 months at a time.  That way schools will have a firm basis upon which to divide students and staff classes.  It’s only fair to ask this commitment from parents for budgeting purposes.
      Such a plan would be sustainable if the pandemic continued for many months or even years.  It could be flexible and adjusted for periods of distance learning if there are surges or local outbreaks of Covid-19.  It's important to have a clear process for return to school that maximizes safety while returning as many students to school on a daily basis as possible, so that students are not robbed of opportunities and families are not put under unnecessary additional stress, financial or otherwise.
      Thoughts?
    • By ReeferMadness
      Ray Dalio, Founder of the World's Largest Hedge Fund, Says the System is Broken
      Of course, most progressives know what Dalio and others like him have been blind to all along.  Without strong measures to restrain the worst of capitalism and force redistribution of wealth, this is exactly how capitalism always works - or rather fails to work.  When you define success as being richer than everyone else, people will find a way to do just that.  Whether it's fair, whether it's moral, whether it's legal; those are things for lawyers and ethicists to quibble over.  Only ideologues and idiots think that it's relevant that capitalism is transparently not a meritocracy.
    • By AsksWhy
      Politics do not interest everyone. Meaning, voter knowledge of today's topics will range from fully informed to totally uninformed.
      My question is: Does the uninformed vote cause more or less damage than a no vote, and why? Please explain.
      I am interested to hear the thoughts of the community.
      Thanks!
    • By mazerunner
      Or you think it`s useless and our voices will not be counted at all due to corruption or some stupid stuff like that?
    • By sillywalker
      We the people of Canada DEMAND change in Government. 
          We the people of Canada demand that the government that belongs to us and to whom we lend our democratic power to lead this country and to sit in opposition, change the laws that govern the behaviour of those politicians that take the oath of office. 
         We are tired of the way that parties spend our hard-earned tax dollars on things that do not benefit this country. We are tired of the lies by all parties and we are tired of the personal agendas that you all bring into the house of commons instead of working toward the common goal of bettering this great nation. 
         We are tired of the ethics violations, the misappropriation of money that does not belong to you and the way you spend on other countries while here in Canada our own go without. We are tired of the way Canadians are left out in the cold as soon as you take office and the opposition all of a sudden becomes sanctimonious in the way they say they want to save us. We are tired of the Pandering politicians on all sides. We are tired of the insider trading. We are tired of the wealthy being the ones that you listen to and not us average Canadians because in fact most of you have never worked a solid day in your life. 
         We are Tired of the way that the people we elect as our Members of Parliament stop speaking for us the moment  they are told to tow the party line. We are tired of the way the country gets ignored because as soon as you take power and the house sits you then worry about the next election rather than worrying about us the people.  
         We demand change and we have some changes we want: 
         1.  We the people demand, not ask, that recall be brought into law. 
         2.  We the people demand that restricted parliamentary privilege be restricted to times that it is a benefit to the country not the politicians. 
         3.  We demand that under conditions that regular Canadians would lose their jobs that the same apply to politicians in the same fast manor. 
         4. We demand that if fired there is an end of your pension no if ands or buts. 
         5. We demand that any financial penalties that politicians receive be proportional to the wages they earn so as to sting them as we the citizens get stung. 
         6.We the people demand that when a politician ends his term that he not use political influence to enrich himself or family, if they do they are to be prosecuted. 
         7. We demand that all monies earned by the writing of books or speaking engagements by any serving politician or politician that has served (because they were only in that position to serve the country) should be paid to charity. 
         8. We demand that any politician caught deliberately lying to the citizens of this country be removed from office immediately. 
         9. We demand that any politician working against the people of this country be removed from office and if deemed serious enough be charged in a court of law. 
          These demands are put before you by citizens of all political parties, All genders and all races. 
       We the citizens of Canada have had enough of governments dividing the peoples and spending recklessly so as to force our taxes to a level that makes it hard to support our families. 
                              
       
       
  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...