Bob Rae out ahead in poll of Canadians

[Canuck E Stan]

I think Bob still carries a lot of baggage with him and Ontario will look at Bob as a risk.

Who is Bob Rae?

We can take him at his word on the first part. Mr. Rae was wrong about deficits, wrong about inflation, wrong about NAFTA, wrong about the GST, wrong about racial hiring quotas, in fact, wrong about just about everything. It speaks well of his character that he should have been able to recognize this, still more to admit it. But is it really something to boast about?

"I don't think Stephen Harper's views have changed very much since he was 21 and frankly that worries me," he told my colleague Don Martin. "People say to me, 'You've changed.' I say, 'Yeah and thank goodness because it's not a bad thing to see the world differently at 58 than you did when you were 25.' " No it isn't. But if you had to choose, whose judgment would you trust more: the guy who got it right at 21, or the guy who took 37 more years to figure it out?

And it was an expensive education. Let no one pretend that the signature achievements of the NDP years -- a near quadrupling of the deficit in one year, doubling the debt in three -- were some sort of accident. They were deliberate creations of policy. Of the more than $5-billion in additional spending that first year, just $1-billion was recession-related. The rest was discretionary -- such as the hefty pay hike for the province's civil servants.

And the recession wasn't all that awful. The previous decade's was sharper: a 3.1% drop in real output, from 1981 to 1982, versus 1.9% in 1990-91. What distinguished Ontario's experience was what came next -- that is, after that first budget: While the rest of the country recovered, Ontario languished for another two years. The Rae government raised taxes, repeatedly, in a desperate attempt to restore order to its finances. Yet revenues, as a share of GDP, were higher under the tax-cutting Harris Tories than under the NDP.

You'll never know what Bob Rae will do in government until he's presented with a problem at that very moment......now that's scarey..... and from his days as Premier.....costly.

[normanchateau]

OTTAWA — As the nine-month Liberal leadership marathon entered its final days, a new poll suggested the party would fare best in an election with Bob Rae at the helm...

...Thirty-seven per cent of respondents said they would vote Liberal or consider doing so if Mr. Rae was the leader, compared with 34 per cent for Stephane Dion, 33 per cent for front-runner Michael Ignatieff and 31 per cent for Gerard Kennedy...

...Among Ontario respondents, 46 per cent said they would or would consider voting Liberal with Mr. Rae as leader, compared to 45 per cent for Mr. Kennedy, 40 per cent for Mr. Dion and 38 per cent for Mr. Ignatieff.

Moreover, 47 per cent of Ontarians said Mr. Rae's record as premier is a non-issue. Another 19 per cent said his record is actually a positive factor, while 25 per cent said it's a negative factor...

Link

I went to the link and I must say that the headline and first sentence are really quite misleading. Here's the part of the link people should focus on:

"Given the margin of error, the Decima survey suggests there was little significant difference in the national appeal of the top four leadership contenders."

On the actual Decima survey, Dion scored second on most questions.

[Argus]

I pointed out that STEPHEN HARPER called the SNAP VOTE for the TWO YEAR COMITTED EXTENSION.

There was no "snap vote". A snap vote is something which is done without warning in an effort to surprise the other side, who presumably have many of their members unavailable. This vote had plenty of warning, and all parties had plenty of time to get their people in to vote for or against it.

There was some whining about the fact everyone wasn't given the opportunity to speak at length on an issue they had already spoken at length on two or three times in the previous couple of years, but that whining was, in my view, unjustified. What would repeating the same words used last year have accomplished? Would it have changed anyone's vote? Would anyone have paid attention beyond the House anyway?

This, in my view, was a cynical and small-minded thing to do. He should have allowed far more time for debate on such an important decision, including private hearings with Senate and opposition members.

Becuase, like, wasting time and going through the motions, even though there was no chance whatsoever of it affecting the outcome, or of anyone saying anything new, was, like, real, real important - in the scheme of things.

No doubt you'd have been there listening and watching with bated breath, chewing on your fingernails at the tension, ordering up autogrphed copies of Hansard so you could pour over the brillient and insightful commentary.

[Argus]

The good news is that Canadians don't like US-style negative campaigns. Remember the election where attacks on Chretien's appearance turned off most Canadians and the ads were pulled.

The last campaign was almost entirely negative from both sides. What, have you already forogtten "soldiers... with guns... in our streets..."? The campaign before that was worse, with big scary Stephen Harper about to put homos into concentration camps and force poor women to bear evil, nasty babies. What planet have you been living on anyway?

[Argus]

I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

Well, since absolutely nothing would have been any different to this point in time if the Liberals had gotten back in power, I would say that the Conservatives should be responsible once they either seriously deviate from the mission the Liberals agreed to, or once that mission would otherwise be over but for their extension.

If the Liberals had gotten back in power there would not have been a SNAP vote on such a serious issue as a two year comittment in Afghanistan.

Liberals would have been more open about the current realities of the mission and without a doubt would be handling it better.

By doing what? Running away? There is absolutely NOTHING about the current mission which would have changed except that you and the national media would be defending it.

[Argus]

Once again, the surprise is how well Bob Rae would do in Ontario compared to the other candidates. I would have thought that kennedy would be the one who would have had the most support in Ontario.

Don't kid yourself. Once his previous history is dredged up day after day by the Conservatives it will certainly become an issue.

Here's how I would handle Bob Rae as leader of the Liberals.

I'd first lament the end of the Liberal party, and how it had been taken over by the NDP. I'd repeat again and again that there were two NDP parties running in the election, and a vote for either is a vote for government social engineering and huge tax increases. I'd point out that like other NDP types Rae is seriously into social engineering rules and laws, and that Canada had never had to face such a thing on a national level. That there'd be no higher level govenrment to keep an eye on him. I'd go on to trumpet how his great plan for reducing health care costs was to limit the number of doctors - the results of which are seen in every small town and city in Ontario. In fact, that has affected all of Canada as doctors in other provinces are drawn to Ontario to help make up the lack. I'd ridicule this as Bob Rae's best shot at reforming health care. I'd also warn that a socialist government in Canada would damage our relationship with the US and lead to bigger problems at the border, bigger trade difficulties, and a slowing economy.

[August1991]

I'd repeat again and again that there were two NDP parties running in the election, and a vote for either is a vote for government social engineering and huge tax increases.

That's the one thing that might save the Tories: vote splitting.

Andrew Coyne has a great column on Rae today:

To this day, Mr. Rae boasts of his decision to bail out Algoma Steel and De Havilland, seemingly oblivious of the opportunity costs of these decisions -- the jobs that were destroyed in unseen ways across the economy to save the jobs that were right in front of his nose. This is what worries me: not that Mr. Rae is an unreconstructed socialist, but his pragmatism. I don't have the first clue what he would do in a given situation, and I suspect neither does he.

National Post

Rae's a good showman and he'd be a formidable opponent.

[jdobbin]

That's the one thing that might save the Tories: vote splitting.

I haven't seen a significant gain in NDP support to indicate a split.

[Mimas]

It's just unfortunate that his unpopular "period" happened to be the entire time he was Premier of Ontario. People being 'required' to take time off without pay will leave a bad taste in the mouths of those who can remember further back than 15 years. I wonder how many civil servants still hold a grudge for those days?

That unpopular period happened to be the deepest recession in Canada since the Great Depression. There was a recession also in the US and in Europe at the same time. It is difficult to claim the the premier of Ontario caused a worldwide recession. What made it worse was the recently signed NAFTA, which made it beneficial for businesses to move to Mexico and layoff hundreds of thousands of workers. The federal government wasn't helping either because it had maxed out its credit and was broke. Mulroney continued to turn up deficits when he should have been paying down the debt during the economic boom of the 1980s, so when the recession arrived, the debt was so high the Feds could not provide any economic stimulus.

Civil servants may still remember the Rae days but after their experience with Harris, the Rae days must have seemed like a joke. When Harris started shutting down hospitals, firing thousands of nurses, teachers, and other public workers, they would have loved to get five days unpaid vacation. As a matter of fact one-third of Canadians consider ourselves overworked - personally, I would love to get 5 days of unpaid vacation. On top of that, Rae did it during a recession when the government was broke and Mike did it during an economic boom when the economy was awash with cash. Not to mention that despite gutting education and health care in the province, Mike didn't pay down the debt even by a buck. He continued turning up deficits and balanced the budget for a mere 2 years during his 8 year rule. So much for the Cons being "fiscally responsible". What a joke! The most fiscally irresponsible governments claiming to be "fiscally responsible". If not paying down your debt when you are swimming in cash is "fiscally responsible" then I don't want to see any such responsible governments in place.

[Mimas]

You're confused. I wasn't talking about the Liberals and the free vote they had after the House debate.

I was talking about the SNAP debate & vote called by HARPER on the 2 YEAR COMITTMENT to Afghanistan.

And I asked when the CPC will take responsibility for the mission instead of blaming it on the Liberals.

We have been asked to avoid the personal insults, please respect the moderator's wishes.

I was referering to the debate and vote on extending the mission by two years.

The Conservative motion received 24 votes from Liberals or the motion would have failed and there would have been another election. Those are the Liberals that shouldn't have voted for it. Why would the Conservatives take responsibility and give the Liberals a free ride?

Because it was the Conservatives who brought that motion to vote, not the Liberals. And they did it in a manner that would have forced an election when the Libs did not have a leader. It was more of an extortion than a free vote. The 24 Libs that voter for it chose what they thought was the lesser of the two evils. That's why. The 2 year commitment is Harper's commitment and he can't blame it on the Liberals. Period.

[gc1765]

Don't kid yourself. Once his previous history is dredged up day after day by the Conservatives it will certainly become an issue.

Here's how I would handle Bob Rae as leader of the Liberals.

I'd first lament the end of the Liberal party, and how it had been taken over by the NDP. I'd repeat again and again that there were two NDP parties running in the election, and a vote for either is a vote for government social engineering and huge tax increases. I'd point out that like other NDP types Rae is seriously into social engineering rules and laws, and that Canada had never had to face such a thing on a national level. That there'd be no higher level govenrment to keep an eye on him. I'd go on to trumpet how his great plan for reducing health care costs was to limit the number of doctors - the results of which are seen in every small town and city in Ontario. In fact, that has affected all of Canada as doctors in other provinces are drawn to Ontario to help make up the lack. I'd ridicule this as Bob Rae's best shot at reforming health care. I'd also warn that a socialist government in Canada would damage our relationship with the US and lead to bigger problems at the border, bigger trade difficulties, and a slowing economy.

Sure, if you want to play the *scary* card like the liberals did with the conservatives. There is probably a lot more in Harper's past that would turn Canadians off than there is in Rae's past. Harper has managed to convince a significant number of people that he has changed and become more moderate, why can't Rae do the same? I don't believe that Rae is the best candidate, but I do believe that a person can change, especially when they have learned from their mistakes.

I think most Canadians, who are interested in politics enough to get out and vote, already know Rae's record. Like I said, it is a bit of a surprise to me that most people don't think of his past as a negative thing, but according to this poll, that is reality.

[Argus]

Don't kid yourself. Once his previous history is dredged up day after day by the Conservatives it will certainly become an issue.

Here's how I would handle Bob Rae as leader of the Liberals.

I'd first lament the end of the Liberal party, and how it had been taken over by the NDP. I'd repeat again and again that there were two NDP parties running in the election, and a vote for either is a vote for government social engineering and huge tax increases. I'd point out that like other NDP types Rae is seriously into social engineering rules and laws, and that Canada had never had to face such a thing on a national level. That there'd be no higher level govenrment to keep an eye on him. I'd go on to trumpet how his great plan for reducing health care costs was to limit the number of doctors - the results of which are seen in every small town and city in Ontario. In fact, that has affected all of Canada as doctors in other provinces are drawn to Ontario to help make up the lack. I'd ridicule this as Bob Rae's best shot at reforming health care. I'd also warn that a socialist government in Canada would damage our relationship with the US and lead to bigger problems at the border, bigger trade difficulties, and a slowing economy.

Sure, if you want to play the *scary* card like the liberals did with the conservatives.

I definitely do.

There is probably a lot more in Harper's past that would turn Canadians off than there is in Rae's past.

Pretty unlikely. Every word Harper has uttered since he got out of diapers has been dug out by the Liberals and media over the last few years. Nobody has focussed much hostile attention on Rae since he left office, though. I wonder what flattering quotes of Castro and musings about nationalizing industries will turn up when they do.

Harper has managed to convince a significant number of people that he has changed and become more moderate, why can't Rae do the same?

Harper spent a lot of time and effort on it. I don't think Rae has. I'm not sure Canadians will appreciate his bare ass philosophising on national TV as they tend to want a PM with a certain measure of dignity. And even his own party might be a bit confused about his supporting private medical clinics and private, for-profit health care. I'm not sure they'll appreciate his anti-Americanism - except for NDP supporters, of course, and the hard left of the Liberal Party. His comparing the softwood lumber agreement to the famous "Munich Pact" between Hitler and Stalin was assinine, and I don't think his call to double foreign aid is going to impress most Canadians who have to wait 8 hrs to get a broken bone set at the hospital. BTW, isn't one of the reasons we have to wait so long in Ontario a doctor shortage caused by Rae limiting the number of medical school seats? Oh no, there is a lot in his closet to be brought out into the light.

[normanchateau]

There is probably a lot more in Harper's past that would turn Canadians off than there is in Rae's past.

That's my take on it. For example, while most Canadians know that Harper opposed same sex marriage, the media have done a dismal job in informing Canadians that he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Sure, the political junkies on this board have heard it multiple times but I suspect very few Canadians are aware of it or even aware that he was appeasing religious extremists when he voted as he did.

[gc1765]

That's my take on it. For example, while most Canadians know that Harper opposed same sex marriage, the media have done a dismal job in informing Canadians that he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Sure, the political junkies on this board have heard it multiple times but I suspect very few Canadians are aware of it or even aware that he was appeasing religious extremists when he voted as he did.

I wonder how many Canadians know about his complete 180 degree turn on the issue of health care & the Canada health act, or donations to political parties.

[geoffrey]

That's my take on it. For example, while most Canadians know that Harper opposed same sex marriage, the media have done a dismal job in informing Canadians that he also voted against making it a hate crime to advocate or promote the killing of homosexuals. Sure, the political junkies on this board have heard it multiple times but I suspect very few Canadians are aware of it or even aware that he was appeasing religious extremists when he voted as he did.

I wonder how many Canadians know about his complete 180 degree turn on the issue of health care & the Canada health act, or donations to political parties.

I'm more concerned about their 180 turn on taxation, from less, to more. Troubling indeed. But let's deal with realities here, Harper isn't going to cancel the Canada Health Act ever, and he's not going to ban gays from Canada or their unions. Not happening, ever.

Rae will attempt to create 'social equity' (read: more taxes, punish the successful, reward the lazy), Rae will raise your taxes, mess around with the Health Act to the point where it doesn't really work in the real world, and do the same with playing a heavy hand in education (which is off limits to the Federal government IMO).

That is the reality, and most Ontario voters will believe it. The Liberals don't get their votes in Ontario from socialists, why the hell would they elect one to the leadership. The Liberals had their best years in Ontario when they were strongy conservative, even by today's standards (the party voted against SSM)...

Ontario voters like conservative, they don't like western conservatism... they will jump at a pro-business Liberal party, not one led by a very left leaning Bob Rae.

[gc1765]

Rae will attempt to create 'social equity' (read: more taxes, punish the successful, reward the lazy), Rae will raise your taxes, mess around with the Health Act to the point where it doesn't really work in the real world, and do the same with playing a heavy hand in education (which is off limits to the Federal government IMO).

How do you know that Rae will raise taxes?

[gc1765]

How do you know that Rae will raise taxes?

From Bob's website:

A Smart Tax and Smarter Regulation Agenda: including balanced budgets, lower income taxes, a simpler and greener tax system, competitive corporate taxes, and better use of the regulatory and procurement apparatus of government to provide more opportunity and fewer impediments for SME's. Bob assailed the current Conservative government's budget plan as an unfocused "grab bag" of measures, which he believes is both regressive and complicates a tax system that is already overly complex.

Link

[normanchateau]

Rae will raise your taxes,

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%.

[sharkman]

Rae will raise your taxes,

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%.

You conveniently forget they also reduced the GST and lowered certain other taxes. But go on, don't let the facts get in your way. Bob running will give the Tories soo much ammunition, and he would lose in Ontario. I can hardly wait.

[geoffrey]

Rae will attempt to create 'social equity' (read: more taxes, punish the successful, reward the lazy), Rae will raise your taxes, mess around with the Health Act to the point where it doesn't really work in the real world, and do the same with playing a heavy hand in education (which is off limits to the Federal government IMO).

How do you know that Rae will raise taxes?

If Harper is raising taxes, Rae will certainly. It's his way. He has a proven track record of tax increases. A greener tax system is a nice way to say we're going to screw Alberta, corporations and middle-class families (those that own cars but can't afford hybrids).

He's still stuck on Kyoto, how is he going to fund that without tax increases?

He's attempted to drag back the ideas of Keynes before, and I really don't see evidence of a change. If there is a downturn in the economy (which there is everywhere outside Alberta), Rae will be tempted to spend his way out of it again.

Martin worked hard to cut those deficits of the late '80s and early '90s. I'm very frightened about the prospects of Mr. Rae in power during any sort of recession.

His website outlines billions in new spending inititives, programs and social engineering schemes. Then he says he's going to cut taxes. Either he's trying to pull a Laffer curve argument here (way beyond a socialist's realm of security) or he's lying about either taxes or programs.

I'm going to bet he's lying about taxes. An NDP leader in Ottawa isn't going to be the big cutter of the three parties.

[Mimas]

Rae will raise your taxes,

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%.

Not quite true. The tax rate on the bottom tax bracket was raised from 15% to 15.5%. That affects everyone since a portion of everyone's income is in the bottom tax bracket.

Besides he raised the tax on responsible canadians who save for retirement by taxing income trusts.

[gc1765]

If Harper is raising taxes, Rae will certainly. It's his way. He has a proven track record of tax increases. A greener tax system is a nice way to say we're going to screw Alberta, corporations and middle-class families (those that own cars but can't afford hybrids).

He's still stuck on Kyoto, how is he going to fund that without tax increases?

He's attempted to drag back the ideas of Keynes before, and I really don't see evidence of a change. If there is a downturn in the economy (which there is everywhere outside Alberta), Rae will be tempted to spend his way out of it again.

This is all speculation. You may or may not be right, but one could just as easily speculate about Harper. The point is, if many Canadians are willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt that he has moved to the centre, why wouldn't those same Canadians be willing to give Rae the benefit of the doubt?

His website outlines billions in new spending inititives, programs and social engineering schemes. Then he says he's going to cut taxes. Either he's trying to pull a Laffer curve argument here (way beyond a socialist's realm of security) or he's lying about either taxes or programs.

I'm going to bet he's lying about taxes. An NDP leader in Ottawa isn't going to be the big cutter of the three parties.

Harper has spent billions in new spending as well. It's not so much a difference in spending as it is a difference in priorities. In the 2006 election, Martin promised similar spending to what Rae is proposing and yet my taxes were lower under Martin's government.

[Mimas]

Rae will attempt to create 'social equity' (read: more taxes, punish the successful, reward the lazy), Rae will raise your taxes, mess around with the Health Act to the point where it doesn't really work in the real world, and do the same with playing a heavy hand in education (which is off limits to the Federal government IMO).

How do you know that Rae will raise taxes?

If Harper is raising taxes, Rae will certainly. It's his way. He has a proven track record of tax increases. A greener tax system is a nice way to say we're going to screw Alberta, corporations and middle-class families (those that own cars but can't afford hybrids).

He's still stuck on Kyoto, how is he going to fund that without tax increases?

He's attempted to drag back the ideas of Keynes before, and I really don't see evidence of a change. If there is a downturn in the economy (which there is everywhere outside Alberta), Rae will be tempted to spend his way out of it again.

Martin worked hard to cut those deficits of the late '80s and early '90s. I'm very frightened about the prospects of Mr. Rae in power during any sort of recession.

His website outlines billions in new spending inititives, programs and social engineering schemes. Then he says he's going to cut taxes. Either he's trying to pull a Laffer curve argument here (way beyond a socialist's realm of security) or he's lying about either taxes or programs.

I'm going to bet he's lying about taxes. An NDP leader in Ottawa isn't going to be the big cutter of the three parties.

A pollution tax is exactly what we need. We are not going to screw Alberta, we are going to cut their free ride on the taxpayers' backs (by cutting subsidies to oil and gas), stop favouring oil and gas polluters while applying more stringent pollution rules to other industries, and protect manufacturing and other export industries from being ravaged by the oil dollar (as the Canadian dollar is referred to these days). If Albertans want more money, they should charge the oil companies' bosses in Texas a fair price for their resources. As it i,s Alberta is almost giving away its resoures by charging the lowest fees in the world. The current model of oil companies free riding on the backs of Albertans and Albertans free riding on all taxpayers' backs doesn't work so well. A pollution tax can set things straight. I'll vote for anyone who will implement it!

[geoffrey]

A pollution tax is exactly what we need. We are not going to screw Alberta, we are going to cut their free ride on the taxpayers' backs ...

You've got to be freakin kidding me. Let's cut the Newfies free ride too, ok? Holy crap you've got such a messed up sense of entitlement to other's money.

(by cutting subsidies to oil and gas), stop favouring oil and gas polluters while applying more stringent pollution rules to other industries, and protect manufacturing and other export industries from being ravaged by the oil dollar (as the Canadian dollar is referred to these days).

So cut oil and gas subsidies to subsidise manufacturing? Way to go Trudeau, why not bring in the NEP tomorrow?

If that's what Rae stands for, I can promise you even the Liberals won't elect him.

If Albertans want more money, they should charge the oil companies' bosses in Texas a fair price for their resources. As it i,s Alberta is almost giving away its resoures by charging the lowest fees in the world. The current model of oil companies free riding on the backs of Albertans and Albertans free riding on all taxpayers' backs doesn't work so well. A pollution tax can set things straight. I'll vote for anyone who will implement it!

What we charge oil companies is an Alberta issue, not at all to do with Canada.

What right does Ottawa have to come in and enforce their dillusional sense of protectionism over the people of Alberta?

Did you lose your job or something when the Ontario industry fell apart from the lack of continued subsidies through the 90's? Why do you hate the hen that lays the golden eggs so much? It makes no sense.

[normanchateau]

Rae will raise your taxes,

It remains to be seen what Rare will do but Harper already raised our taxes. On July 1st, 2006, the personal income tax rate on those who earned the least was raised from 15% to 15.5%.

Not quite true. The tax rate on the bottom tax bracket was raised from 15% to 15.5%. That affects everyone since a portion of everyone's income is in the bottom tax bracket.

You're right of course. However, that tax increase was more punishing to those who earn the least than it was to those who earn the most.