Whoever you support, it is time to move on

[Riverwind]

Conservatives continue to oppose the government as oppositions do.

Unfortunately, this is a fundamental weakness of our political system. What the electorate wants (based on current opinion polls and the last election) is a coalition between the conservatives and the liberals. We are going to have minority governments for the foreseeable future - all parties have to do a better job of making the system work. The conservatives could change the tone of parliment and work to get their priorities implemented in the next few months - they have enough seats to do that.

[Riverwind]

So social conservatives don't deserve any kind of representatioin? Their views are so illegitimate they should be cast out in the cold? How come the Liberals don't do that to their own social conservatives then?

I don't mean to say that people are not entitled to their opinion. I am only thinking of what the CPC needs to do if it wants to be a national party that has seats in Quebec. The CPC needs to tell their socially conservative MPs that issues like abortion and gay marriage are non starters and that the leadership of the party will not change any laws related to these issues even if the conservatives get a majority.

[willy]

The CPC needs to tell their socially conservative MPs that issues like abortion and gay marriage are non starters and that the leadership of the party will not change any laws related to these issues even if the conservatives get a majority.

They have done that on Abortion.

I am happy with the party position on SSM and I don't see the Conservative stance as out of step with the majority of Canadians. It is out of step with the majority on this site (granted). Do you think this will be a wedge issue?

The gay members of the Conservative party that I met in Montreal wanted the name but they were more interested in the rights and even more interested in the 1000's of other areas that the federal government effects our lives.

The question is: Are you an 80% friend or 20% enemy.

We will not from a coalition with the Liberals because the run from the left and govern by opportunism. Gain power for power sake.

IMO we need a government with some basic principles that guide its direction and the people choose which one most closely resembles them. So are you as social democrat (NDP) or free enterpriser (Conservative).

Both need to huge the middle and be broad based parties. At the end of the day they have to govern the people that didn't vote for them as well. (This is a moment of optomism)

[Riverwind]

They have done that on Abortion.

Great, then Harper needs to be out there repeating that over and over again. It takes awhile to change entrenched opinions.

I am happy with the party position on SSM and I don't see the Conservative stance as out of step with the majority of Canadians. It is out of step with the majority on this site (granted). Do you think this will be a wedge issue?

It is a problem for the conservatives because it makes them seem like that they are closely associated with the evangelical right wing in the US. In other words, even if Canadians are evenly split on the issue it is a very bad issue for the Conservatives to even be talking about. In the US, gay marriage was a wedge issue that benefited the republicans. In Canada, if it is a wedge issue that will most likely benefit the Liberals. My point of view is there are too many more important issues to talk about. The Conservatives should pass the SSM marriage bill and forget about it.

We will not from a coalition with the Liberals because the run from the left and govern by opportunism. Gain power for power sake.

One person's 'opportunism' is another person's 'listening to the voter' or 'willingness to compromise'. The Liberals are a party of the center and, by definition, the location of the center changes over time so a party occupying that space must be able to adapt. I see that as a good thing.

IMO we need a government with some basic principles that guide its direction and the people choose which one most closely resembles them. So are you as social democrat (NDP) or free enterpriser (Conservative).

I think it is a bad idea to give any party with strong ideological underpinnings power because they tend to be too unwilling to compromise when the facts require a response that opposes their ideology. The NDP serves a useful purpose in Canadian politics because it give the ideological left a place to go where they cannot do much damage. Maybe we need something like that for the ideological right.

[Guest eureka]

I can remember when Canada was described as a golden country with a golden future. Well, it never happened. Money has been pouring into federal coffers for the last ten years, and what have they accomplished with it? Health care continues to deteriorate without any attention being paid to it. Family poverty and child poverty are holding steady or rising. Family income is falling. Disposable income is falling. Fewer people own their own homes. The Justice system is a clanking, rusting mess out of the reach of ordinary Canadians, and thoroughly corrupt. The military is falling apart. We have an antique railway system, a bankrupt national airline, and a highway system badly in need of billions and billions of dollars in repairs. No one respects government anymore - with good reason, as all levels of govenrment are filled with venal, self-serving, dishonest people.

I can agree with most of this but it should be born in mind that as much is provincial responsibility as federal.

It also goes back further than ten years into the times of the rise of the Right Wing with the huge increases in debt that they incurred though their misguided taxation policies. Both federally and provincially.

[Guest eureka]

If we use the "Precautionary Principle" in electoral politics, then we should write off the "Conservatives" entirely.

More Canadians are afraid of the harm that party might do than are afraid of the Liberals.

With very good reason in my opinion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I could be wrong, but it is my understanding that Harper's support for the Americans wasn't rooted in the nature of the administration but in the traditional alliance America and Canada have enjoyed. 

Well, that would still be an insufficient reason to send Canadian soldiers into a completely fubar illegal invasion.

[Argus]

If we use the "Precautionary Principle" in electoral politics, then we should write off the "Conservatives" entirely.

More Canadians are afraid of the harm that party might do than are afraid of the Liberals.

With very good reason in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, but what's THAT worth?

[Argus]

So social conservatives don't deserve any kind of representatioin? Their views are so illegitimate they should be cast out in the cold? How come the Liberals don't do that to their own social conservatives then?

I don't mean to say that people are not entitled to their opinion.

Only that no respectable, righteous political party would pay the slightest attention to them, right? However many millions of people hold social conservative views. It's okay to have people who are communists, or the next thing to it, but not those evil social conservatives. Why, they oughto be in camps somewhere, right? Re-education camps where they can be shown the true path!

I am only thinking of what the CPC needs to do if it wants to be a national party that has seats in Quebec. The CPC needs to tell their socially conservative MPs that issues like abortion and gay marriage are non starters and that the leadership of the party will not change any laws related to these issues even if the conservatives get a majority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They've already pretty much done that. What do you want, a blood oath?

And since when did gay marriage become the means test for any righteous and moral politican in the land? A couple of years ago it wasn't even on the map, and even the Liberals were opposed to it. It's amazing what a couple of years of media propoganda can do to the weak minds of the left!

[Argus]

I can remember when Canada was described as a golden country with a golden future. Well, it never happened. Money has been pouring into federal coffers for the last ten years, and what have they accomplished with it? Health care continues to deteriorate without any attention being paid to it. Family poverty and child poverty are holding steady or rising. Family income is falling. Disposable income is falling. Fewer people own their own homes. The Justice system is a clanking, rusting mess out of the reach of ordinary Canadians, and thoroughly corrupt. The military is falling apart. We have an antique railway system, a bankrupt national airline, and a highway system badly in need of billions and billions of dollars in repairs. No one respects government anymore - with good reason, as all levels of govenrment are filled with venal, self-serving, dishonest people.

I can agree with most of this but it should be born in mind that as much is provincial responsibility as federal.

It also goes back further than ten years into the times of the rise of the Right Wing with the huge increases in debt that they incurred though their misguided taxation policies. Both federally and provincially.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Damn those Trudeau conservatives!

[Riverwind]

They've already pretty much done that. What do you want, a blood oath?

They are still blocking the passage of the gay marriage bill in parliment.

And since when did gay marriage become the means test for any righteous and moral politican in the land? A couple of years ago it wasn't even on the map, and even the Liberals were opposed to it. It's amazing what a couple of years of media propoganda can do to the weak minds of the left!

The issue was dumped on parliment by the courts and all parties suddenly had to take a side. The fact that the conservatives decided to make a wedge issue out of it and came up with a proposal that will likely require the not-withstanding clause is what made it important.

Frankly, I do not care whether gays can get married or not. What pushed me over the edge is was some group based in Alberta that called my home (in BC) to urge me to call my MP and tell him to 'protect the family'. I did call my MP and told him to support the bill in order to protect gay and straight families. It really bothers me that anyone can be so bigoted when it comes to gay people that they would spend so much time and money trying the manipulate the political process.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

And since when did gay marriage become the means test for any righteous and moral politican in the land? A couple of years ago it wasn't even on the map, and even the Liberals were opposed to it. It's amazing what a couple of years of media propoganda can do to the weak minds of the left!

According to my "World Human Rights Guide", by Charles Humana, (1986) The 'means test' was 40 questions regarding 'human rights', and one of the questions was 'Do personal rights include the right to: Practice Homosexuality between consenting adults?'. A lot on countries said no, in fact in Saudi Arabia the legal maximum sentence is beheading. China said "the practice is not officially admitted to exist, charges would come under 'offensive behaviour'.

Gay marriage is only the next, and adoption the last, logical step.

[Guest eureka]

Did you forget that we had a government headed by one Brian Mulrony before this Liberal administration?

[Argus]

Did you forget that we had a government headed by one Brian Mulrony before this Liberal administration?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you forget that Canada has virtually no debt until the Trudeau/Chretien Liberals built one up? And that the debt payments required of that in the first years of Mulroney's government were in the $35-40 billion range? Do you have any idea what kind of a drag that was on his ability to deal with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment during a world wide recession?

Try doing the math of Mulroney's budgets during that time and exclude the original debt Trudeau/Chretien built up, and all the money required to service that debt.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Did you forget that Canada has virtually no debt until the Trudeau/Chretien Liberals built one up? And that the debt payments required of that in the first years of Mulroney's government were in the $35-40 billion range? Do you have any idea what kind of a drag that was on his ability to deal with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment during a world wide recession?

There is no doubt, substantial public debt accrued under Trudeau and increased under Mulroney. Mulroney's economic policies were disastrous, adding to unemployment, and sharply increasing the carrying cost of the debt.

Another consideration is what was bought with te debt money under respective governments.

[Guest eureka]

Mulroney's administration just about doubled the debt.

The debt "inherited from Trudeau did not cost even close to $35/40 billion to service: not close. To have cost that much would have meant that the government of Canada had borrowed at interest rates that were almost usurious.

Also, it was the Trudeau government that had to deal with the "world=wide" recession of 1981 when much of the debt was incurred - as it should have been.

It was Mulroney who did not use the recovery to deal with debt but, like all Right Wing" administrations of modern times, increased the debt for ideological reasons.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Also, it was the Trudeau government that had to deal with the "world=wide" recession of 1981 when much of the debt was incurred - as it should have been.

It was Mulroney who did not use the recovery to deal with debt but, like all Right Wing" administrations of modern times, increased the debt for ideological reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent points, especially the last one.

[Argus]

Mulroney's administration just about doubled the debt.

Given interest rates in the mid to high teens over a number of years that isn't suprising. Any debt will about double if you can't pay it off and have high interest rates.

The debt "inherited from Trudeau did not cost even close to $35/40 billion to service: not close.

The total debt when Trudeau took power in 1967 was about 12 billion (0.3% of GDP). The deficit was at a measly 187 million. Unemployment was very low, as was inflation.

When Mulroney took over from him in 1985 the debt was up to about 200 billion (8% of GDP) and the yearly deficit had passed 38 billion. Unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits. Debt service costs represtented 22% of the budget. With the bank rate as high as it was the debt jumped to 360 billion within five years because in order to pay the previous year's debt servicing charges the government had to run a deficit - which meant borrowing more money - which meant the following year's debt charge would be still higher During Mulroney's reign his government spent $230 billion servicing the debt, all of it borrowed money. Nevertheless, the overall debt dropped from 8% of GDP to 5.8% of GDP

Further, comparing spending is telling:

The yearly budget during Trudeau's time in office doubled between 1967 and 1970 and doubled again between 1970 and 1975. The inflation rate during the first 5 year period averaged 4%, and during the second 5 year period 5%. The national debt, during the entire period of his rule, increased by 1200%

Mulroney's first year in office was 1985. The budget that year was $112,362 billion dollars. Five years later in 1990, the budget was up to $151,590. The average inflation rate during that five year period was 4%, which means the budget rose only slightly in real terms during that time, most of which probably went to pay growing debt servicing costs. By 1992, the last full year of Mulroney's reign, the budget had increased by less than the rate of inflation.

By the time Chretien took over in 1993 unemployment and interest rates were both down, and the debt was at 466 billion. Chretien raised that to 600 billion. He did cut back on the deficit, but not for the first two years. It wasn't until continuing improvement in the economy that he was able to make any substantial reduction in the deficit (in 1996).

[Riverwind]

When Mulroney took over from him in 1985 the debt was up to about 200 billion (8% of GDP) and the yearly deficit had passed 38 billion. Unemployment and interest rates were both into double digits. Debt service costs represtented 22% of the budget. With the bank rate as high as it was the debt jumped to 360 billion within five years because in order to pay the previous year's debt servicing charges the government had to run a deficit - which meant borrowing more money - which meant the following year's debt charge would be still higher During Mulroney's reign his government spent $230 billion servicing the debt, all of it borrowed money. Nevertheless, the overall debt dropped from 8% of GDP to 5.8% of GDP

Mulroney really gets a bad rap. He ran up the deficit largely because Canadians were in denial in the 80s about the dangers of deficit spending much like they are in denial about the sustainability of our heathcare system as it is currently structured. The Liberals were able to balance the budget because the population had 'hit bottom' and was willing to accept the treatment that would have been politically impossible for Mulroney in the 80s.

Mulroney also deserves a lot of credit for sticking to his guns on the GST. It allowed the Liberals shift gov't taxes away from income and on to consumption which has gives a much more competitive tax system.

[The Terrible Sweal]

hmm. Can you explain why that is more competitive?

[Riverwind]

hmm.  Can you explain why that is more competitive?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Incomes taxes decrease productivity because people have less incentive to work harder and save more. Value added taxes may hurt consumption but the negative effect on the economy is less than income taxes - especially if the low income earners get a tax credit.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Value added taxes may hurt consumption but the negative effect on the economy is less than income taxes - especially if the low income earners get a tax credit.

But consumption is just the other end of income. If we have 7% more to spend on haircuts, the barbers can earn 7% more.

[Riverwind]

Value added taxes may hurt consumption but the negative effect on the economy is less than income taxes - especially if the low income earners get a tax credit.

But consumption is just the other end of income. If we have 7% more to spend on haircuts, the barbers can earn 7% more.

You would also have more to spend on haircuts if your after tax income is higher. The difference is with a lower income taxes you have an incentive to work harder and be more productive but a lower value added tax only gives you an incentive to spend.

[Argus]

hmm.  Can you explain why that is more competitive?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The VAT was only added to Canadian made products. Thus foreign products escaped this tax, which gave them an advantage over Canadian made goods.

[Guest eureka]

Mulroney could have paid off the debt he inherited in a few years at the supposed service cost. That "high" interest rate did not last and had little bearing on the debt problem. Refinancing would have been no problem.

He does not get a bad rap although I agree that the GST was a better option than what it replaced. That does not necessarily mean that it was the right one.

The disincentive to work of income taxes is a card that has been played too often and is rubbish. Higher taxes in that form leave most of the money in the earners' hands. They also would replace the VAT type and leave the wealthy with substantially more to spend on their toys.