Liberals+NDP Forget 1990?

[SamStranger]

Going through some archive videos on CBC's website I came across some history that I forgot. In 1990 Brian Mulrooney was fighting hard to get the GST through the senate- the Liberal dominated Senators were threatening to kill the bill if it got through final reading in the commons and made it to the senate- so Mulrooney got concent from the queen to add 8 PC senators to the senate to make sure the bill got through. Now-- I never forgot about that (im just filing in anyone who cant remember)

The vote for 3rd reading came down to 144 yeahs to 114 nays. All Liberal and NDP mp's who voted voted NAY (including 2 PC mp's who got kicked out of the governement for voting against them) During question periods leading up to the vote, all the NDP and Liberal questions were about the GST, and why they are AGAINST IT. They would go crazy in opposition to the GST...

Lets fast forward to 2006: Budget 2006 of the Conservative Governement to cut the GST from 7% to 6%.

Who votes for it? The governement and the Bloc. Who opposes it?? THE LIBERALS AND NDP!!!

If that cant be considered hypocracy then what the hell is?? Gilles Duceppe said it best "The PC bring in the GST and the Liberals cried and screamed. Now the tories want to lower it and the Liberals cry and scream. Am i missing something?"

I will never understand how in a period of 13 years you go from wanting to Kill the tax, to appose lowering it??

As Gilles Duceppe said: "Am I missing something"??

[Topaz]

Good question and the only thing I can think of is different people and different times. I'm beginning to think its better to elect the person and not on the party. Harper is kinda coming off as a PC'er than a former Alliancer! Of course, maybe the Alliance always wanted to be a Conservative, just not the progressive part.

[watching&waiting]

You also need to remember that Chretien promised that he would kill the GST as sson as he got in power.

Yep, just another promise that was not worth the breath to speak it. Also Harper is considering making a certain percentage of the GST to provinces in an effort to address the fiscal imbalance. This is on top of the said cuts he promised. The difference is when harper says promise, he means it. When Liberals say promise it mean F*&% you. when NDP promises it means only after the world ends and NDP comes to power.

[jdobbin]

As Gilles Duceppe said: "Am I missing something"??

Brian Mulroney was also opposed to free trade before the election and then supported it afterwards.

Was he missing something?

[geoffrey]

Paul Martin was very vocally opposed to same-sex marriage just a few years ago. Just shows, it's all about votes, not principles in politics.

[bk59]

While we're at it, why not ask why the Conservatives were all up in arms about Belinda Stronach crossing the floor to join the Liberals, and then they have no problem with the fact that within days of being elected the government Harper brings David Emerson into the cabinet? It didn't even take a year before he changed his mind about members crossing the floor (the worst part being that Emerson had just been elected as a Liberal days before he conveniently switched).

I think it's safe to say that most politicians will do what's in their best interest and it doesn't matter to them whether it's consistent with their past positions or not. Although I guess I'm more inclined to believe the 'different people, different times' argument when some actual time has passed. Preferably at least a few years...

[Remiel]

While I think the Conservatives were hypocritcal in the extreme over the floor crossing, I think the way it is addressed in general is kind of dumb. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing parties. The only time it becomes an issue, is when you change parties in order to get a position, with the *possible* exception of when a person may be in truth infinitely more qualified than everyone else for it. In my view, there is no such thing as loyalty to a party, there is only loyalty to Canada and your constituents. Thus, if you suddenly find yourself in a situation where another party better suits your ideals, you *should* switch. As for constituent outrage, I image most of the people who get ticked off voted for the party, not the person, which is what they ought to be paying attention to. The question is, do floor crossers vote significantly different on the issues they are free to decide for themselves on? People who think floor crossing should be banned, I believe, are ignorant of the political process.

[SamStranger]

This topic was about the GST, and only one person commented on it...

"Am I missing something?" - (This should become the quote of the board )

[bk59]

While I think the Conservatives were hypocritcal in the extreme over the floor crossing, I think the way it is addressed in general is kind of dumb. In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing parties. The only time it becomes an issue, is when you change parties in order to get a position, with the *possible* exception of when a person may be in truth infinitely more qualified than everyone else for it. In my view, there is no such thing as loyalty to a party, there is only loyalty to Canada and your constituents. Thus, if you suddenly find yourself in a situation where another party better suits your ideals, you *should* switch. As for constituent outrage, I image most of the people who get ticked off voted for the party, not the person, which is what they ought to be paying attention to. The question is, do floor crossers vote significantly different on the issues they are free to decide for themselves on? People who think floor crossing should be banned, I believe, are ignorant of the political process.

I agree with you that there isn't anything inherently wrong with crossing the floor. My big problem with the Emerson situation was that he switched to the Conservatives within days of being elected as a Liberal. Had he switched after maybe a year, then I wouldn't have had a problem with it. To me it just seems like this guy didn't like to be on the Opposition side of the floor and jumped ship the first chance he got. It seemed to be about keeping power, not about principles.

[bk59]

This topic was about the GST, and only one person commented on it...

"Am I missing something?" - (This should become the quote of the board )

Sorry... Wasn't trying to hijack your topic. I just wanted to point out that changing positions on an issue isn't limited to any one (or two) parties.

In terms of the GST... I think you have to consider the amount of time that has passed since it was brought in. No matter which party you look at, there are different people in the party now (to a certain degree). Plus, you can't go back to the beginning of time to say "look how party X has changed its mind". After all, no one is walking around accusing political parties of changing their minds about allowing women to vote. Even more importantly, to me anyway, I don't think we should be going around trying to lock people into a position just because it has become a political game to accuse politicians of "flip-flopping". We want our leaders to think critically about the issues, and if there are new circumstances around an issue then maybe it is OK for people to adjust their views.

That being said... that doesn't excuse people from promising to do something and then not doing it right away. Or the hypocrisy of denouncing something one month and then embracing it the next. Not without some real reasons anyway (in both cases).

Another thought occurs to me as well. In terms of the GST cut, I think that both the Liberals and NDP were in reality saying that they preferred the income tax cuts that the Liberals implemented just before the last election over the GST tax cut.

[Rovik]

First, grouping the NDP with the Liberals is not fair to the NDP because the Liberals were in power in the early '90s, promised to cut the GST but didn't. The NDP weren't in power, therefore never had the opportunity to cut the GST as the Liberals did. I have to agree that the Liberals out and out lied.

Second, when Harper and the Conservatives promised to cut the GST, at the same time to offset losses, they increased the income tax rate for the lowest income bracket. Many experts came across and said that the GST cut would not be as benefical as the income tax cut (for the lowest income bracket) and the NDP and the Liberals used this reasoning as part of why they were against the GST cut.

Third, as you mentioned, it was Mulrooney's Conservatives that created the GST in the first place and did the highly unethical act (in my opinion) of getting the 8 new Conservatives members in the Senate so that the bill could pass. And yet, fast forward to recently and it was a Conservative government who cut the GST...as I mentioned once before, it's pretty ironic.

I hope that there are two things that people don't forget.

1. The Conservatives created the dreaded GST in the first place

2. The Liberals promised to cut the GST but didn't

[SamStranger]

You made some great points their, and im glad were having a civil discussion on this. But... do you honestly think that the NDP (if were in gonvernment in 1993) would have scrapped the GST like the Liberal promised to do..?? I doubt it.

Another thing. I agree that the Liberals have changed a bit since 1993 until now, BUT... remember- the GST was passed into law in 1990, so between 1990- and the election in 1993 it was under 3 years, so they had enough time to decide if they were against the GST (as they were in opposition) or for it. They obviously chose the popular route of going against it, but never followed threw. And now in 2006 they are for it, and the Tories are against it (even though they introduced it). Crazy country we live in eh?

[geoffrey]

If the NDP were in power, we'd be paying considerably more GST. They are all about trying to be some ill convinced European style party, the VAT looks like a tremendously great idea to them. There would only be increases to the GST under an NDP government.

[jbg]

Good question and the only thing I can think of is different people and different times. I'm beginning to think its better to elect the person and not on the party. Harper is kinda coming off as a PC'er than a former Alliancer! Of course, maybe the Alliance always wanted to be a Conservative, just not the progressive part.

If he's a PC'er and not a former Alliancer this is a bad example. The PCPC was the ones who put the GST through. If anything, it was a symptom of their inability to reign in spending.