Prime Minister Rae?

[August1991]

I took notice when Bob Rae wrote in the National Post in April 2003 "Parting company with the NDP":

The NDP criticizes the Third Way, opposes the World Trade Organization, sits on its hands when Tony Blair praises the advantages of markets, and denounces any military action against terrorism whether by the United States, Canada or Israel. This is not a vision of social democracy worthy of support.

Rae's article was mostly devoted to Sven Robinson's (and the NDP's) position on Israel and the PLO. But the comment about the WTO struck me. I hoped the NDP might do as the British Labour Party did under Tony Blair and wake up to the reality of the modern world. Instead, it seems that the NDP stayed put and Bob Rae left.

The G & M has a long profile on Rae today. It's not as good as the profile of Ignatieff (the journalist relies too often on Rae's book "Power to Protest") but it puts Rae into proper light. He's a tax-and-spend do-gooder.

Of course, we knew that public service mattered to Mr. Rae. He has spent the past decade working as a helpful fixer for governments in Canada and abroad.

Through the Forum of Federations, he has assisted the peace process in Sri Lanka and provided constitutional advice in eight countries, including Iraq, Nigeria and Mexico. He mediated the tricky dispute over native fishing rights in Burnt Church, N.B., advised the Ontario government on postsecondary tuition fees, represented the Red Cross in the restructuring of Canada's blood services, aided lumber companies fighting U.S. restrictions on softwood-lumber trade and even helped to pull the Toronto Symphony Orchestra from the brink of bankruptcy.

---

Some people take a more psychoanalytic view. “I think he needs, deep down at his core, to be a player,” said Charles Pascal, secretary of the Atkinson Foundation and a deputy minister in the Rae era. “He needs to get up every morning and needs to make a difference.”

---

Mr. Rae defends his record in government and, indeed, some of the things he did — such as the financial rescue of Algoma Steel Co. and de Havilland Aircraft Co. — were praiseworthy.

From Bill Clinton to Richard Nixon to Jacques Chirac to Francois Mitterand to Winston Churchill, politics is the art of the comeback. Maybe Rae will pull this off.

[jdobbin]

From Bill Clinton to Richard Nixon to Jacques Chirac to Francois Mitterand to Winston Churchill, politics is the art of the comeback. Maybe Rae will pull this off.

You forgot Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. They also had comebacks.

I haven't read much of his campaign economic thoughts. He said he is going to tax and spend?

[gerryhatrick]

Hmmm. This is an odd topic.

The term "tax and spend do-gooder" can be levelled at all politicians. They all need to tax, they all need to spend, and they all presumably want to (or SHOULD want to) do good for their consituents.

So, your label of Rae - obviously meant to be a slight - is a moot point.

Rae must be hitting the right notes to get such an empty criticizm levelled at him.

I think he's it. He will likely be our next PM, that's my prediction.

[Charles Anthony]

So, your label of Rae - obviously meant to be a slight - is a moot point.

No. You are wrong and blinded from the subtlety.

It is possible to do good by NOT taxing and NOT spending other people's money. That is what distinguishes some "do-gooders" from other true do-gooders.

I think he's it.

Why?

I spun my D&D die and it said Dion. I spun it again and it said Rae. I spun it one more time for good measure and it turned out to be Iggy.

[Higgly]

The term "tax and spend do-gooder" can be levelled at all politicians. They all need to tax, they all need to spend, and they all presumably want to (or SHOULD want to) do good for their consituents.

O so true. Nice post.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Rae must be hitting the right notes to get such an empty criticizm levelled at him.

Hmm, I guess that means that Harper is doing a phenomenal job giving your unending criticisms of him....

[gerryhatrick]

You are wrong and blinded from the subtlety.

It is possible to do good by NOT taxing and NOT spending other people's money. That is what distinguishes some "do-gooders" from other true do-gooders.

It is not possible to operate a government without taxation and spending.

This topic is is nothing but empty rhetoric.

[geoffrey]

You are wrong and blinded from the subtlety.

It is possible to do good by NOT taxing and NOT spending other people's money. That is what distinguishes some "do-gooders" from other true do-gooders.

It is not possible to operate a government without taxation and spending.

This topic is is nothing but empty rhetoric.

It is possible, and was done until Trudeau to operate a government without a tax and spend mentality though.

Since PET it's been tax as much as is tolerable, and use that money for whatever special interest group lobbies you that afternoon.

The real effective taxation method in my opinion would be to spend conservatively throughout the year, then have to go to the taxpayers with an invoice at the end of the year, showing what you've spent. No more tax and spend, you only collect what you need, and it's fully accountable. No more maximum taxation on the Laffer and maximum spending on whatever... spend only on neccessities and send us the bill.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It is not possible to operate a government without taxation and spending.

This topic is is nothing but empty rhetoric.

Tax and spend is an accusation that is labelled at politicians that show aln alarming lack of concern for balancing budgets or having their government live within is means. For example, like Bob Rae running a budget deficit of close to $10 billion dollars for a provincial budget.

Your obstinance in making this point is just obtuse....

[geoffrey]

It is not possible to operate a government without taxation and spending.

This topic is is nothing but empty rhetoric.

Tax and spend is an accusation that is labelled at politicians that show aln alarming lack of concern for balancing budgets or having their government live within is means. For example, like Bob Rae running a budget deficit of close to $10 billion dollars for a provincial budget.

Your obstinance in making this point is just obtuse....

I think surpluses are a much more dangerous symptom of the tax and spend mentality.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I think surpluses are a much more dangerous symptom of the tax and spend mentality.

Fair enough. Once a jurisdiction's net debt is retired there should be no reason to run surpluses.

Are you listening Jim Dinning....

[Alexandra]

This topic is is nothing but empty rhetoric.

And, the topics such as, "Harper is a wimp and so are his most fervant supporters". etc. are not empty rhetoric?

The usual despicable topics from the usual pot calling the kettle black type. Or, rattler of cages.

[geoffrey]

I think surpluses are a much more dangerous symptom of the tax and spend mentality.

Fair enough. Once a jurisdiction's net debt is retired there should be no reason to run surpluses.

Are you listening Jim Dinning....

Alberta would be the prime location to implement my concept of invoiced taxation, for this reason. Personal and corporate tax revenues (or just eliminate corporate tax like they shoudl) could be adjusted depending the oil royalty revenues, ending the $8b surpluses of excess taxation but still hedging risk against future market collapse. Payroll deductions would be made based on very conservative revenue projections, and the tax rates adjusted at year's end to evenly balance the budget. Everyone get's a slice the surplus back depending on the taxes they've paid.

A more involved and reasonable form of Ralph Bucks.

[Ricki Bobbi]

d taxation, for this reason. Personal and corporate tax revenues (or just eliminate corporate tax like they shoudl) could be adjusted depending the oil royalty revenues, ending the $8b surpluses of excess taxation but still hedging risk against future market collapse. Payroll deductions would be made based on very conservative revenue projections, and the tax rates adjusted at year's end to evenly balance the budget. Everyone get's a slice the surplus back depending on the taxes they've paid.

A more involved and reasonable form of Ralph Bucks.

That seem like a pretty involved system for a number of reasons.

If I understand you, tax rates would change every year and you wouldn't know the rate you are paying until the end of the tax year?

[Argus]

Hmmm. This is an odd topic.

The term "tax and spend do-gooder" can be levelled at all politicians. They all need to tax, they all need to spend, and they all presumably want to (or SHOULD want to) do good for their consituents.

So, your label of Rae - obviously meant to be a slight - is a moot point.

Rae must be hitting the right notes to get such an empty criticizm levelled at him.

I think he's it. He will likely be our next PM, that's my prediction.

Rae will not do well in Ontario, where memories are long, will get nothing out West, except in granola territory in BC, and is no more likely to win Quebec than Harper. I don't see how, barring a Tory meltdown, he will beat Harper.

[Michael Hardner]

This thread, the media coverage, and political discussion in general doesn't pay enough attention to ideas. Everybody likes a great story ( and there have been lots of stories about the leaders) but where's the substance ?

I'd be interested in hearing what a tax-and-spend politician would plan to do differently this time around...

[watching&waiting]

If the liberals are crazy enough to vote Rae their leader, then it will be an easy election win for a CPC majority. The east coast would not likely take well to him and Quebec will easily turn to Harper when the other choice is Rae. Quebecers were here and watching when Rae pretty much destroyed Ontario, I do not think they will allow him the chance to repeat that in Quebec. The West will assuredly go CPC and BC will split some but I do think Haper will be the winner but in a closer race.

I whole heartedly would think Rae would be the ideal candidate for a CPC majority. Maybe I should join the libs and vote for him

[Ricki Bobbi]

Rae will not do well in Ontario, where memories are long, will get nothing out West, except in granola territory in BC, and is no more likely to win Quebec than Harper. I don't see how, barring a Tory meltdown, he will beat Harper.

As much as I hope you are right, I'm not sure if I agree.

A lot of the swing Conservative-Liberal voters in Ontario might forgive Rae his trespasses.

Quebec Federalists are naturally inclined to vote Liberal barring a really strong Conservative leader, i.e. Mulroney, or a really weak Liberal leader, i.e. Turner/Martin. For that reason alone I think Rae could only gain seats in Quebec...

[cybercoma]

Rae will not do well in Ontario, where memories are long, will get nothing out West, except in granola territory in BC, and is no more likely to win Quebec than Harper. I don't see how, barring a Tory meltdown, he will beat Harper.

thank you for injecting a bit of reality into this thread.

[Ricki Bobbi]

thank you for injecting a bit of reality into this thread.

He only needs to pick up 14 seats from the CPC. Seven in Ontario and seven in Quebec isn't unrealistic from a man who probably won't make any big mistakes...

[sharkman]

And how many do the Tories need to pick up to form a majority? Rae's biggest liability is his record. If it comes down to it, Ontarians will be comparing it to Harper's term in office and with a now reported surplus of 6.3 billion since the May budget, he's looking pretty good.

[Ricki Bobbi]

And how many do the Tories need to pick up to form a majority? Rae's biggest liability is his record. If it comes down to it, Ontarians will be comparing it to Harper's term in office and with a now reported surplus of 6.3 billion since the May budget, he's looking pretty good.

30 seats. More than twice as many as Rae needs to swing to win back government.

How many voters who are possible Liberal voters base their voting decision on fiscal performance of the Government? That is much more the domain of committed CPC voters.

Rae can, and will, argue that there were global economic issues at play and he stepped into a bad situation.

[sharkman]

30 seats. More than twice as many as Rae needs to swing to win back government.

How many voters who are possible Liberal voters base their voting decision on fiscal performance of the Government? That is much more the domain of committed CPC voters.

Rae can, and will, argue that there were global economic issues at play and he stepped into a bad situation.

You think possible Liberal voters don't base their voting decision on fiscal performance? If Harper had a deficit of 6 billion, me thinks you'd be playing a different tune.

Rae can argue what he likes, other premiers managed to do better during the same time. Making excuses will make himself look worse.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You think possible Liberal voters don't base their voting decision on fiscal performance? If Harper had a deficit of 6 billion, me thinks you'd be playing a different tune.

Rae can argue what he likes, other premiers managed to do better during the same time. Making excuses will make himself look worse.

Yeah, I don't think fiscal performance will be affect many voting decisions this time around.

What is the different tune I would be playing?

Hey, I'm actually trying to be realistic here. Rae offers the Liberals their best chance to win period. All the other candidates have far more negatives and I don't think as Conservatives supporters we should take Rae too lightly.

[rover1]

One problem might be the considerable resentment by NDP members, of Rae.

It seems reasonable to imagine that many left leaning voters would consider voting Liberal, on a strategic basis, and with Rae as a candidate, they would be less so inclined. When such a factor is added to the still present awareness, in Ontario anyway, of his previous misdeeds, it might prove fatal for the Liberals.

If, as expected, the next general election is a close run thing, the Liberals would be well advised to consider these things very carefully.