What are those things? That is, the things people don’t like about the Liberal government under Chretien? (You must understand, political matters that might be common knowledge in Canada are hardly ever even mentioned by the U.S. news media.)
Yesss . . . I remember in 1997 Tony Blair made a campaign promise to hold a national referendum on switching to proportional representation for electing the House of Commons. (Which, if it passed, would probably prevent Labour, or any other party, from winning an absolute majority ever again.) And what has he done about it since he took office? I was really disappointed by his inaction, because I’d like to see PR become a real issue in the U.S. – at least something people talk about, the way they were talking about the term-limits idea in the early '90s. (I remember a political cartoon from after the 1994 Congressional election, which gave the Pubbies, who called for Congressional term limits among other things, a majority in both houses: The Republican elephant in a groom’s tuxedo is driving off in a honeymoon carriage, and has an innocent eyes-heavenward look on his face as he kicks the astonished bride, labeled “Term Limits,” out of the carriage.) The problem here isn’t that the people are against PR but that most people have never heard of it, and explaining takes more words than you can fit on a bumper sticker. If the Mother Country (or Canada, for that matter) were to hold a national referendum on the issue, the U.S. media would at least have to explain what was going on, which might spark some interest.
??? You mean Paul Martin? When and why did Layton call him a murderer? (Once again, things that are common knowledge in Canada, etc.)
Jack reminded people that budget cuts have a real affect on people’s lives. Cutting affordable housing means people who need it have less access to it. Ergo, there’s a higher risk of people dying of exposure.
I’m glad he stuck by his guns on this one. A lot of politicians would have backed down.
It’s actually a pretty short list, considering how long they’ve been in power.
The sponsorship scandal. Following the ridiculously close vote in the '95 referendum in Quebec (Non 50.5% - Oui 49.5%) the federal government decided to engage in a promotional campaign essentially advertising Canada to Quebec. Under the auspices of that program, it seems that some advertising firms with close connections to the Liberal party received a couple hundred million bucks without having to do any work for it.
Gun registry. A big issue in rural areas, particularly in western Canada, where people are rather pissed off that the govt thinks it’s a good idea to force one through a lot of red tape just for the rusty old .22 you use to take potshots at magpies. It’s also a broader issue of fiscal mismanagement because the pricetag of the registry has run way up over a billion dollars, when it was initially supposed to cost something like 10 million.
Underfunding of health care. When the Liberals first gained power back in '93, they made some very serious cuts to government spending, pretty much across the board. Paul Martin, then the finance minister, eliminated what had been a perennial annual deficit of ~40 billion over the space of, ummm, four or five (?) years. Health care was not immune to the cuts, and the general consensus seems to be that it was cut too far.
That’d be pretty much it for big complaints, I think. What have I missed? Of course there are a myriad of more minor issues - heel-dragging in replacing naval helicopters, Shawinigan golf course funding (some folks in Jean Chretien’s old riding got some very questionable government assistance), failure to fight for/against same-sex marriage hard enough, and on and on.
In spite of promises about health care, Paul Martin is the most right-wing leader the Liberals have ever had. When he was finance minister, our social services were gutted, chopped to the bone. Towards the end of his tenure (awhile after Paul Martin had been tossed to the back benches), Chrétien tried to make a shift back towards the left (it was part of his “legacy”), but it was far too little, far too late. At least he kept us out of Iraq.
Now that Paul Martin is head of his party (thanks to some of the slimiest political maneuvring ever pulled off in this country), they’ve made a hard turn to the right. They’ve gone so far that they’re starting to attract the right-wing vote now, and draining off the fiscal conservatives from the new Conservative Party.
You have 15 seats in the house, its hard not to gain. My apologies though, I got federal and provincial NDP mixed up. It was the provincial that won a recent bi-election and managed to get official status in Ontario. But as a comparison, there are 9 independents, which as a “party” gained the most seats…
Not any more. It was the PC and the Liberals that was almost indistiguishable, being very large and very close to centre. Keep in mind that that New Concervatives are VERY far from centre.
So my first question: if your party won’t form the next government, why would anyone bother voting for them over, say, the Green Party, the Communist Party, or the Independent Party (with almost as many seats, and maybe more people running)?
I’ll be surprised if the NDP get any more than 15 seats.
I’ll be surprised if Layton actually wins his seat.
I’ll be suprised if his marriage makes in through this.
I’ll be even more surprised if he ever actually gets into the House of Commons.
You guys seem to be on the inside so I’d really like to know if the NDP actually have enough candidates running to form the oposition? I know traditionally the NDP has struggled to find people to run.
Another point that I see people miss is the difference between federal and regional popularity. With the Reform party swallowed up the Tories, the lost the “right of centre” votes. As I said before, the PC part was huge in the Maritimes but I don’t believe the Refrom party will be. That is where the Concervative party will lose the most seats, so the question is who gets them? My guess is Liberal since its closer to their old vote than the NDP.
Hamish and matt_mcl, can you point to any specific riding where the NDP has a new shot at actually winning?
Sorry for the delay, I tried to reply earlier by the hamster hate it.
This is a point the NDP have yet to grasp: Canada HAD to move to the right, cuts HAD to be made. Social[ist] programs require funding, and that was funding that Canada did not have, resulting in a massive deficit and massive debt. The current NDP solution is “tax the rich.” Are they serious? People will not vote for higher taxes, ever, no matter what group the NDP try to stigmatize.
Which is exactly correct, and helped by the New Reform party moving further to the right. The NDP will have a hard time convincing people that Canada can afford to move back to the left, no matter how many economists Layton stands in front of. But I will give him credit for actually consulting [an] economist this time.
Hamish when the leader of a party turns around and specifically tags the former Minister of Finance as the primary agent of someone death I’m under whelmed. Sure, the party faithful will appreciate the hyperbole but from my non-NDP view, the finance minister is responsible for making a budget for Canada. There can not help but be segments that do not receive what many would like. However the homeless in Toronto are not the sole responsibility of Ottawa. There are provincial and municipal budgets which speak much more directly to the plight of the homeless. If primary blame was to fall anywhere why not there first?
So because it’s an election, Mr. Layton can effectively level charges of criminal neglecence against the former federal finance minister?
As for Liberal mismanagement, Shawinigate was more of a display of naked power politics (Development Bank of Canada for example), while HRDC was a classic display of unaccounted dispensations of money. The management of the Armed Forces has been shameful (reduction in funding while simultaneously increasing workloads) especially when you consider the shutting down of the Rwanda inquiry and the foreign policy shell game of using the forces to placate Washington while dissembling our role in Canada.
I look at the “new Liberal government” as new paint over moldy walls. Looks nice, but the underlying rot is still there.
There is no such thing as the “Independent Party” in the Canadian Electoral system. You can certainly sit as an independent but more than one are not automatically grouped together. They would have to caucus and meet the minimum number to be a party.
And I’m no NDP supporter by any means, but the idea that the NDP can’t run enough candidates is silly. They miss a few ridings here and there, but always run very close to a full slate. From their official site , it looks as though they’re only missing four at this point.
I was being a bit facetious, while trying to point out the fact that the NDP have 15 our of 308ish seats, so only another 139 to go…
The problem that has dogged the federal NDP is that first they do not always have enough candidates to fill all the constituencies, and second, they have to scrounge the bottom of the barrel to find someone to run. So in the end, while the federal party may put together a popular platform, their individual candidates hold them back. The result is that in all too many ridings the independent candidate has a better chance of winning.
What the Liberals had yet to grasp is that social programs are economically, not merely ethically, necessary. Every dollar spent on preventative programs like early childhood support, education, nutrition, and health saves seven dollars in curative programs like the justice system, emergency health care, and welfare.
Selling off your social programs to improve your economy is like burning your wall planking to heat your house.
That little savings requires decades to materialize. The way putting solar panals on your house would save you money in the long run. But that’s cash up front that few people have, and assumes that its going to be sunny all the time.
The government sadly has to balance the ideals of the future with the realities of the present.
Our country is wealthy. To propose that it is too poor to educate and heal our citizens and feed and shelter the hungry is to propose that we are in far worse straits than we actually are.
It starts with being able to effectively tax the wealth in our territory. With the neoliberal vogue, governments all over have abandoned their responsibility to do so, in favour of offering tax cuts out of all proportion. Very little of this returns to the average citizen in proportion to what he or she loses in the social wage.
Reducing taxes is an inefficient way to ensure a basic standard of prosperity. There is little to suggest that the money the uppermost tier of citizens and businesses save from tax breaks will go into creating jobs or buying goods and services. At the same time, tax breaks to the middle class do little to make up for the loss of services that are more efficiently provided by the collectivity.
As a specific example, when I was running in 2000, Martin had proposed a round of tax cuts: at that time, average levels of student debt were such that students entering the work force would find that this tax break would enable them to pay off their debts in 196 years.
Naturally, there are taxes that are unfair and regressive. As an example, the NDP is campaigning to eliminate income taxes on those earning less than $15,000/year, as well as removing the GST on family items such as school supplies and menstrual products.
Assurance of health, education, and social security promotes the efficiency of the workforce. It’s easier to get an education if you’re neither hungry, sick, nor cold, and it’s easier to get a job if you are educated and you have a fixed address. Broadly improving the well-being of the population is what distributes wealth throughout the economy, causing economic growth and the creation of jobs. Concentrating wealth by reducing taxes doesn’t.
That’s not ‘balance,’ then; that’s a recipe for a continual and worsening fiscal and social crisis. It’s irresponsible to argue that we’re too poor to spend $1 now at the cost of spending $7 in the future.
“Mere parsimony is not economy. …Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part of true economy.”
Look, I haven’t heard anything about a Canadian recession. What has changed in the Canadian economy in the past 10 years, that so many people seem to think the country can no longer afford its accustomed level of social and other public spending?
This might sound like a silly question, but why does Canada even have armed forces? We Yanks aren’t about to invade you, and who else on Earth would have motive and opportunity? Is it purely because of your historic commitment to contribute your support to NATO?
I don’t think that the Liberals have really swung all that hard to the right. To a degree, I suppose, but note that they haven’t swung right at all with regards to social issues. Decriminalizing pot and legalizing same sex marriage (even if it is under some duress from the courts) are not the actions of a hard right wing party. Yes, they have swung fiscally conservative to a degree, but they’re still a long way from the Conservatives, even further from some of the old policies of Reform/Alliance days, and nowhere near various provincial Tory governments, such as those of Klein and Harris.
I think what’s happened is simply that Canadian voters have started to consider deficit spending as a vote-swaying issue. This is so widespread a phenomena that even provincial NDP govts, like my own here in the cradle of the CCF, do their damnedest to avoid deficits. Personally, I’m not even sure budget-balancing is a left-right indicator. It’s just good government (with appropriate caveats for legitimate occasions for deficit spending, of course). What’s a left-right indicator is how you balance the budget. Not surprisingly, the manner in which Martin balanced the federal budget falls somewhere between the way Romanow balanced Saskatchewan’s, and the way Klein balanced Alberta’s.
It wasn’t any radical change in the economy. Rather, it was the growing realization that continuing to run the government with large deficits (they peaked just under 50 billion the last few Mulroney years in the early 90’s, as I recall) isn’t sustainable in the long run. No, national debt isn’t the end of the world, but if it gets too high, the cost of maintaining it erodes one’s ability to do anything else. No government with the intention of being re-elected is going to raise taxes by $2k/person, so they cut spending instead.