Yep. We could all pay higher taxes and have more corporations leaving Canada. Good choice.
Look, both sides are wrong here when it comes to the 2008 proroguation. If I spelled that right.
You are absolutely correct in that while what the Conservatives did was legal, it was equally unprecedented, which in the Canadian tradition is dirty pool.
But it is equally correct to say that while what the opposition parties were proposing was legal and Constitutional, it was also equally unprecedented. Proposing a new government to be led by a newly party-appointed Prime Minister who would sit in power for two years without facing the electorate as a party leader? Never done before. Any other leader appointed midstream has, rightly, gone to face the polls. The coalition was proposing to appoint Michael Ignatieff as Prime Minister and not consult the people of Canada about it for years. Outrageous.
You cannot have it both ways - and for that matter neither can Leaffan. You can’t complain that the Conservatives acted in a manner contrary to our Parliamentary traditions while ignoring that in doing so they prevented the Opposition from acting in a way that would ignore our Parliamentary traditions. Similarly, Leaffan, you can’t keep saying “well, it was legal” and complain about what the Opposition was planning, since what the Opposition was planning was perfectly legal.
A fiscal conservative? We are talking about the man who made a campaign promise that he wouldn’t change the tax rules for income trusts, only to be forced to completely reverse the decision within a year because doing nothing would do immense damage to the Canadian economyt? That fiscal conservative? The man who cut the GST against the pleas of every economist in Canada – a move that is largely responsible for the terrible fiscal position Canada finds itself in today? That fiscal conservative? The man who, upon seeing the devastation the subprime mortgage crisis was wreaking in the US, said “I’ve got to get me some of that!”, and proceeded to commit the Government of Canada to repaying every penny of any 40-year mortgage with absolutely no downpayment that went bad? That fiscal conservative? The man who spent billions bailout out Ford and GM? That fiscal conservative? The man who is committed to cutting corporate taxes at a time when Canada faces a deficit around $40 billion, with the progress made in paying off the debt in the late 90s and early 2000s almost completely eliminated? That fiscal conservative? The man who spent billions bailing out the auto industry? That fiscal conservative? The man who, by his own rosy projections, expects to be running a deficit until 2015 – and the independent Parliament Budgetary Officer projects that there will still be a deficit in 2015?
Stephen Harper may be a conservative. But a fiscal conservative? Not a chance.
There was, in fact, a precedent, albeit an extremely controversial one: King-Byng. As it happens, the government that came out of that collapsed within days, but it has happened before.
And let’s not forget that the attempted coalition didn’t arise out of a sudden grasp for power. It was motivated by Harper’s attempt to bankrupt all opposition. It was the only way that the opposition could stay solvent without forcing an election months after the last one.
Rysto. I disagree with everything you have said. Everything.
Income trusts: Had to be changed else every corporation in Canada would have seeked the same tax shelter.
GST reduction: You’d rather have the extra 2% now on gas, electricity, etc?
Bailing out auto industry: Do you have any idea how the supply chain of manufacturing works and how many other suppliers would have gone under? For fucks sake even the NDP and Liberals were calling for a huge stimulus package to help these guys. In fact, that’s why parliament was initially prorogued: to get the necessary stimulus money into the budget.
Do you honestly think that you are smarter than the Prime Minister, who holds a masters degree in economics? Do you really think like that? Do you?
The mistake was not changing the rules. The mistake was in making the promise in the first place without understanding the economic consequences.
I’m going to have to repay every penny of that 2% someday, with interest. Yes, I’d rather pay the taxes now.
And even if we could have afforded the GST cut, the right thing to do was cut income taxes, not the GST. The GST is much more economically efficient than an income tax. We’d be much better off, economically speaking, with lower income taxes paid for with a higher GST. You’d have to put tax credits in place so that you wouldn’t hose the poor, but if implemented correctly it would lead to some real economic benefits(similar reasoning lead to the PST -> HST transition in BC and Ontario).
You’re conflating the stimulus with the auto bailout. They were two completely different things. Anyway, the stimulus was all just political camouflage for the real reason behind the coalition: Harper’s attempt to cut off funding to political parties, which would devastate the opposition’s finances while leaving the Conservatives in good shape. The spin on that would have been awful, so the opposition latched onto the lack of stimulus as the ostensible reason for tossing out the Conservatives.
But anyway, the fact that the Liberals supported the auto bailout doesn’t change the fact that it was a really shitty policy. Throwing money at terribly run companies is a stupid waste of money. Mark my words, GM and Chrysler will be back for bailouts again some day in the distant future.
And here’s the thing for me: the only reason that I would ever vote for the Conservatives is if their economic policies were significantly better than their opponents’. I’ll never agree with their social policies. But with the Harper Government I’ve gotten all of the idiotic social policy that I expect combined with completely braindead economic management. Even if I were to accept your premise that the Liberals’ economic policy is just as bad as the Conservatives – and I don’t, although I’m sure the Liberals will work hard to convince me otherwise in the upcoming campaign – I still wouldn’t vote for the Conservatives, because they have to do a better job than the Liberals economically speaking for me to even consider them.
I saw a quote once that summed up Stephen Harper’s problem beautifully: Stephen Harper the politician trumps Stephen Harper the economist 10 times out of 10. Now, I’d amend that to be 999 times out 1000 – he did get the Income Trust thing right eventually – but even so, having an advanced degree in economics really doesn’t do you any good if you don’t actually base your fiscal policy in sound economics.
Except that’s not correct. There have been five Prime Ministers who took office during the course of a Parliament and who have not immediately called an election: Abbott, Thompson, Bowell, Meighen and St. Laurent.
Prime Minister Macdonald led the Conservatives in the election on March 5, 1891. He died on June 6, 1891.
He was succeeded by John Abbott, who served until November 24, 1892.
Abbott retired and was succeeded by John Thompson, who served as Prime Minister for two years, until his death in December, 1894.
Thompson was succeeded by Mackenzie Bowell, who served as Prime Minister for approximately 18 months, until the spring of 1896.
Bowell was forced out by a party revolt, and succeeded as Prime Minister by Charles Tupper, who was sworn in as Prime Minister after Parliament had finally been dissolved, for the 1896 election.
So, there were three Prime Ministers who served during the term of the Parliament elected in the 1891 election, for the course of 5 years.
Then, there was the example of Prime Minister Meighen. Prime Minister Borden won the war-time election of 1917. Upon Borden’s retirement in 1920, Meighen became Prime Minister. He served for about a year and a half before calling an election.
And, there was the case of Prime Minister St Laurent. Prime Minister Mackenzie King won the election of 1945. He retired in late 1948, and was succeeded by St Laurent, who did not call an election until late June, 1949.
Now, all of these were cases where the new Prime Minister was of the same party as the outgoing Prime Minister, and also are all fairly old precedents. Perhaps the modern political understanding would not allow similar transfers today. However, it’s just not accurate to say that it’s unprecedented to have a Prime Minister come in and not immediately call an election.
Also, there is a recent precedent at the provincial level. In 1985, Premier Miller of Ontario called an election. No party had a majority. The Liberals and the NDP (under Peterson and Rae, respectively) announced an agreement for Peterson and the Liberals to form the government. They defeated Miller’s government on a non-confidence motion, and Peterson was sworn in as Premier without another election being called.
Canadians are against purchasing fighter jets? Are Canadians seriously bought into the idea that the US will gladly protect us with their military? We’re a frickin’ sovereign nation - we need to have a military budget and equip our troops just like a real country. (This said as a pacifist - and a realist.)
People want the government to address healthcare, education, and childcare, but not debt reduction and deficit spending? How exactly do they think any government is going to pay for any social programmes without money? First you pay your bills, then you start looking at paint colours for the walls. This attitude from Canadians surprises me; I thought we were more pragmatic as a nation than that. I also don’t agree that PM Harper has been fiscally irresponsible; I think the budgets Flaherty has brought down have been moderate and realistic for the upheaval that was going on in the world.
As for cutting off funding for political parties and bankrupting the opposition, the Conservatives are liquid due to fundraising; I see no reason why all the other political parties can’t do what the Conservatives have done and quit expecting taxpayer money to keep them solvent.
So, here’s what I see - Liberals/NDP/Bloc vote down this budget, we go to the polls, we pay $300 million, we get another Conservative minority government, and PM Harper et al are free to bring back a different budget that is far less favourable to Liberal, NDP, and Bloc interests because they KNOW they can’t trigger another election right away without incurring the wrath of the Canadian voting public. Badly played, Left wing. You’re handing the Conservatives a carte blanche if they win (and it would surprise the hell out of me if they lose), plus costing all of us hundreds of millions of dollars to stroke Iggy’s ego.
I’m all in favour of buying new fighter jets, but the F35 is a stealth attack aircraft, designed to penetrate sophisticated air defence systems and attack ground targets, NOT a fighter. It’s not very useful for defending Canadian airspace, and hugely overkill for missions such as supporting Canadian troops in Afghanistan. Throw in the high cost of the aircraft and the major additional costs for maintaining the stealth features (a significant problem for the B2 stealth bomber), and we’d be better off buying the improved F18E/F that was designed as a replacement for our present CF18A/D aircraft.
I was answering this question. “Is a majority government in Canada possible anymore?”
Attitudes have changed in la belle province. The riding Hull/Aylmer which is about 5 minutes from Ottawa has been a liberal riding since the dawn of time. Two elections ago the Bloc was about short about 5% of the votes from wining the riding. The last election it was close to 3%.
For a riding that is heavily dependent on federal jobs due to a militant bilingualism hiring policy where the main people benifiting from it are Francophones. It’s just a matter of elections before that riding votes in a separatist.
Ignore that if you wish.
That result is from 2006. Wikipedia is telling me that in 2008 the Liberals increased their lead to 15%
2008
Lib 37.47%
Bloc 22.07%
2006
Lib 32.69%
Bloc 29.37%
2004
Lib 41.87%
Bloc 32.49%
Gatineau is still Bloc though (and an NDP Quebec target).
According to this morning’s Star, it may be possible.
And I make no apologies for using the Toronto Star as a reference. If what they say is false, prove it. I make a point of looking at the Toronto Sun to see what the other side is saying from time to time.
Preach it, brother ! When your choices are between Conservative vermin® and Liberal scum®, THEN, you HAVE to vote NDP. It’s the only sane choice (unless you happen to have a Rhino running :D).
With a minority government, it’s all a balancing act. I expect some very dramatic fiscal changes if (once?) the Conservatives get a majority.
Some once said “all politics is local.” (Google tells me it was Tip O’Neill.)
I’ll up that to “all politics is personal.” Having worked in manufacturing for years I completely agree with lower corporate tax rates. With the dollar at par it’s increasingly difficult to justify keeping manufacturing jobs here. And lower consumption taxes help too.
As for the F-35s: Let’s not cancel yet another much-needed military acquisition. The Sea King replacements still aren’t available coming up on 20 years after Chretien cancelled those.
Le Ministre, I know you’re employed in the arts, and completely get why an NDP government would be more supportive of your interests.
Not sure where **Rysto **works?
The F-18s are getting old, it’s true, but the situation is nothing like the Sea Kings. I consider the EH101 cancellation and subsequent politicized chopper selection process as Chretien’s single biggest fuckup (though he’d really tied his hands during the 93 campaign). It wasted orders of magnitude more public money than the sponsorship scandal. This isn’t anything like that. The Hornets aren’t falling out of the sky. No one can articulate why we should buy F-35s rather than Super Hornets or Eurofighters. There’s been no competitive selection process.
I won’t lose any sleep in the F-35 purchase goes ahead, but it’s entirely appropriate to question it. Maybe if the Harper Government[sup]TM[/sup] had lived up to its campaign promises of transparency as effectively as Chretien lived up to his promise to cancel the EH101, we’d have some idea of why we’re buying from Lockheed Martin rather than from Boeing or the Euro consortium without any sort of public tendering process.
Well, don’t forget that funding for political parties was brought in at the same time that political donations from corporations and unions were banned, which cut off quite a lot of funding for the Liberals and NDP.
ETA:
High tech.
And from the Conservatives, as well.
The thing is, it is not necessarily to the country’s advantage to have power go to the party supported by those with the greatest wealth. There have been many ideas to level the playing field, all of which have advantages and disadvantages.
Leaffan - for the record, I have been a professional singer/actor/musician for almost 30 years. In my experience, the party that has the best support for the arts has always been the Liberals. I was an NDP member in the heady days of 1990, when Bob Rae came to power in Ontario. Imagine my dismay when the Ballet-Opera House, which we had needed since the Canadian Opera Company was founded, was denied funding, at which point the entire deal fell apart and had to be started from scratch. I have since spoken with the then NDP Minister of Culture and to an extent, we have made up, but that was the point when I left the NDP and I have never been back.
Certainly for this election, our only real chance of replacing Prime Minister Stephen Harper is to elect at least a Liberal minority, if not a Liberal majority. If the Conservatives have even one seat more than any other party, I believe the precedent dictates that they must be given the chance to form the government, however fragile. (I will defer to those who know better - I haven’t the time to thoroughly research that statement.) The likelihood of their forming a coalition with any of the other parties is small, though politics does make for strange bedfellows. Certainly, the Liberals and the NDP would seem a more natural pairing, but the Liberals would have to get at least one seat more than any other party. A steep curve, it would seem, but many things can happen between now and May 2nd.
As to the Bloc, they are not invincible in Québec. All the other parties have to do is run better candidates, a fact which seems to escape people who promote electoral reform. I was brought up by my parents to vote for the strongest local candidate whose party platform you could accept. That advice led them to vote Progressive Conservative for most of my youth, even though they were blue Liberals rather than red Tories. The local Conservative MP was someone my father had met in WWII, and he knew him for a man of intelligence and integrity, publicly and privately. As long as that MP was around, no Liberal short of Jesus Christ himself had much of a chance in our house.
Looking into it a little further, the situation isn’t anywhere near cut-and-dry. It looks like these particular planes are agreed-on by a group of countries that are involved in funding their purchases, there was a tendering process, the maintenance contracts are still being discussed, and this purchase was started by the Liberals way back when. Questioning it is appropriate; cancelling it just for the hell of it isn’t. I don’t want another Sea Kings (or Avro Arrow) debacle.
Somebody was talking about PM Harper and his reducing the GST; I would like to harken back to Chretién and the GST - you want to talk about some political weaselling. No, that’s not the right term - he bald-facedly lied to us. The weaselling came later when he tried to explain why he said he’d scrap the GST, then didn’t. I (and probably most of us here) are also old enough to remember Canada before any GST; somehow we limped along with just corporate taxes, income tax, and built-in taxes paying for all the things we want government to supply with our money. Here’s an article discussing the GST cuts, and whether they were good or bad.
Both of these issues speak to an ongoing problem with running a country in fits and starts - one party starts something, the next party cancels it or takes it in a completely different direction - it’s a bit of a wonder anything ever gets done.
You do realize those taxes were higher than the current situation, right? The 7% GST replaced a 13.5% manufacturer’s tax. The problem is not that there is a GST - in fact it’s the opposite. The problem is that the government does not have the adequate funding to pay for the things we’re asking it to supply, and reducing that tax is a horrible thing to do when you have a deficit.
As did Harper on Income Trusts. In both cases, the parties made stupid campaign promises that they couldn’t possibly follow through on.