Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Eaglelord17]

I don't know...I'm under the impression that under the last Conservative government, our national debt has started to get paid down.

Less national debt = less money spent paying the interest.

And since our interest payment last year was more than what we paid in provincial health transfers I think any government would (or at least should) want that debt as low as possible

The Conservatives spent a ton when they were in power. The only two years they didn't have a deficit was the first year and the last year. In comparison the Liberals under Chretien and Paul Martin ran surpluses every year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

As to why the government wouldn't necessarily care if the debt is low is because we live in a short view election cycle where politicians don't do things for the good of the country rather the good of being re-elected. Paying down the debt just means cuts which is always unpopular, followed by someone else getting in and spending a ton on popular initiatives. If the electorate wasn't so short sighted it would be a different story, but especially in the instant gratification world we live in, no one likes to think in decades when they are more concerned about next month.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The Conservatives spent a ton when they were in power. The only two years they didn't have a deficit was the first year and the last year. In comparison the Liberals under Chretien and Paul Martin ran surpluses every year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

As to why the government wouldn't necessarily care if the debt is low is because we live in a short view election cycle where politicians don't do things for the good of the country rather the good of being re-elected. Paying down the debt just means cuts which is always unpopular, followed by someone else getting in and spending a ton on popular initiatives. If the electorate wasn't so short sighted it would be a different story, but especially in the instant gratification world we live in, no one likes to think in decades when they are more concerned about next month.

Wasn't that why Paul Martin became very unpopular?

He did some pretty drastic cuts to actually pay down the debt, and my impression was that was a big part of the thousand cuts that got him knocked off the podium.

 

[Maxman1]

The Conservatives spent a ton when they were in power. The only two years they didn't have a deficit was the first year and the last year. In comparison the Liberals under Chretien and Paul Martin ran surpluses every year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/multimedia/canada-s-deficits-and-surpluses-1963-to-2015-1.3042571

As to why the government wouldn't necessarily care if the debt is low is because we live in a short view election cycle where politicians don't do things for the good of the country rather the good of being re-elected. Paying down the debt just means cuts which is always unpopular, followed by someone else getting in and spending a ton on popular initiatives. If the electorate wasn't so short sighted it would be a different story, but especially in the instant gratification world we live in, no one likes to think in decades when they are more concerned about next month.

They also had a global financial crisis happen partway into their second year, and were threatened with a coalition and had opposition demand deficit spending.

 

[Maxman1]

Wasn't that why Paul Martin became very unpopular?

He did some pretty drastic cuts to actually pay down the debt, and my impression was that was a big part of the thousand cuts that got him knocked off the podium.

I think AdScam had more to do with his losing.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think AdScam had more to do with his losing.

Ah right, I was just reading Wikipedia as it was all blurry. Forgot about the Gomery report, which cleared both him and later Chretien personnally, but was more the party itself.

Maybe thinking of when he was finance minister, and had some unpopular cuts to pay off the debts.

He seemed like a decent guy for a politician, and maybe would have done better in different times when he wasn't inheriting a giant flaming bag.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I think AdScam had more to do with his losing.

That was likely the straw that broke the camel's back - not to mention golden campaign fodder for the other parties - given people being underwhelmed over cuts.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Getting the sense the the F35 announcement and the HIMARS announcement may very well be tied at the hip with any sort of trade agreement we come to with the US. The announcing of these 'investments' in US defence firms will be coupled with a trade agreement in order to make Orangeman 'look better' to his base in the US.

 

[YZT580]

And the US wasn’t using exploitative labour? What do you think all those illegal immigrants were doing in America?

I am all for taking a moralistic stance on trade, but if we did so there would be a lot of harsh realities to face and very few countries we could actually trade with.

true, but there is grey and then there is black. China is in a special category of black. Their actions in the South China Sea, their actions towards Hong Kong and Taiwan their actions towards Ken and Julianne and the Michaels put them in a category all by themselves.

 

[ArmyRick]

NP not liking Carney? Next thing you know, they'll be saying the sky is blue!

You do know who Professor John Robson is, right? Very anti-Liberal in the last few years.

 

[ArmyRick]

Live downtown Winnipeg. Beyond gangland shit and a couple one offs, pretty calm summer honestly.

Summer ain't over

 

[Navy_Pete]

Getting the sense the the F35 announcement and the HIMARS announcement may very well be tied at the hip with any sort of trade agreement we come to with the US. The announcing of these 'investments' in US defence firms will be coupled with a trade agreement in order to make Orangeman 'look better' to his base in the US.

Meanwhile his actions are pushing us away from US integration on other major defence systems, and probably long term more EU (and maybe SK) equipment than US, so huge net loss if we actually are scaling up to even 3%.

I'm sure the lockhead martins, raytheons and other major suppliers in the US are really happy about that being coupled with DoD talking about scaling back major platforms like warships and aircraft.

 

[PrairieFella]

You do know who Professor John Robson is, right? Very anti-Liberal in the last few years.

Yes I know who John Robson is. You know who Chatham Asset Management, owner of the NP is, right? If you dont they are an American firm who own right wing media outlets continent-wide. Sounds like foreign influence to me.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Meanwhile his actions are pushing us away from US integration on other major defence systems, and probably long term more EU (and maybe SK) equipment than US, so huge net loss if we actually are scaling up to even 3%.

I'm sure the lockhead martins, raytheons and other major suppliers in the US are really happy about that being coupled with DoD talking about scaling back major platforms like warships and aircraft.

Some of the latest info on the Japan ‘deal’ specifically talk about an increase from 14 to 17 billion in defence contracts.

So the HIMARS and F35 announcements will be rolled into any sort of trade agreement that we may reach sometime in the future.

 

[PrairieFella]

Some of the latest info on the Japan ‘deal’ specifically talk about an increase from 14 to 17 billion in defence contracts.

So the HIMARS and F35 announcements will be rolled into any sort of trade agreement that we may reach sometime in the future.

I wonder if that's part of the secret meetings today? "Lay off or we buy Rafales and Chunmoos"

 

[Navy_Pete]

Some of the latest info on the Japan ‘deal’ specifically talk about an increase from 14 to 17 billion in defence contracts.

So the HIMARS and F35 announcements will be rolled into any sort of trade agreement that we may reach sometime in the future.

Sure, which is easy for things we are already deeply contractually committed to, or wanted to do anyway for Ukraine.

For future purchases interoperatability with EU vice US makes a lot more sense (esp given things like Latvia which is turning into Germany 2.0).

 

[Czech_pivo]

I wonder if that's part of the secret meetings today? "Lay off or we buy Rafales and Chunmoos"

Wishful thinking.

 

[CBH99]

Sure, which is easy for things we are already deeply contractually committed to, or wanted to do anyway for Ukraine.

For future purchases interoperatability with EU vice US makes a lot more sense (esp given things like Latvia which is turning into Germany 2.0).

I don't know about that last part...

Latvia may see us with a standing forward presence for the next few years, and in that context yes it makes sense to be as interoperable as possible with whatever EU command we end up falling under.

But the US is still very much the top dawg in any coalition military operations - even if that operation takes place in eastern Europe. If real war ever kicked off we would see more American troops & vehicles than we would anybody else (most likely) and using the same or similar kit as them also makes a lot of sense.


Regardless of anybody's feelings about Trump and his statements, we shouldn't start making poor kit choices just because the orange man hurt our feelings.

Some kit, I am fine with us branching out and looking at other suppliers. But some kit really is made best by America, and we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot because of some rough waters from time to time.

They are still our largest trading partner by far, we share a continent with them, we share a bi-national military command with them - and not much is likely to change in that respect in the next 4 years.

America will still be just south of us in 4 years time. We will still trade with them. We will still defend the continent with them. We will still have a trading relationship with them.

So we need to keep that relationship as strong as we can, and be the best neighbours that we can be.

 

[CBH99]

Sure, which is easy for things we are already deeply contractually committed to, or wanted to do anyway for Ukraine.

For future purchases interoperatability with EU vice US makes a lot more sense (esp given things like Latvia which is turning into Germany 2.0).

I don't know about that last part...

Latvia may see us with a standing forward presence for the next few years, and in that context yes it makes sense to be as interoperable as possible with whatever EU command we end up falling under.

But the US is still very much the top dawg in any coalition military operations - even if that operation takes place in eastern Europe. If real war ever kicked off we would see more American troops & vehicles than we would anybody else (most likely) and using the same or similar kit as them also makes a lot of sense.


Regardless of anybody's feelings about Trump and his statements, we can't start making poor kit choices just because the orange man hurt our feelings.



Sure there is some kit we can look at acquiring from elsewhere. But some kit just has to be made in America, and I am fine with us buying it from them.

They are still our largest trading partner by far, we share a continent with them, we share a bi-national military command with them - and not much is likely to change in that respect in the next 4 years...

 

[YZT580]

Regardless of anybody's feelings about Trump and his statements, we can't start making poor kit choices just because the orange man hurt our feelings.



Sure there is some kit we can look at acquiring from elsewhere. But some kit just has to be made in America, and I am fine with us buying it from them.

From what I can imagine: it makes sense to have our air force harmonized with the U.S. for sure. Our navy should be able to integrate as seamlessly as possible but that can be accomplished through systems integration on our own hulls i.e. radars. Armament as well since our most reliable source for re-loads is our home base so either we build it in Canada or we buy U.S. As for army, the odds of going to war in America are slim to nil unless we plan to invade Washington again so in my mind our army needs to be equipped as an expeditionary force deployment abroad. They will be needed in Europe, or possibly Africa (fingers crossed that doesn't happen) and places that won't need the fancy American gear. The army doesn't require integration with the Americans it simply needs to be able to work with it. Ukraine has shown that anything goes so buy the Swedish CV90 or the Korean tank or whatever we can get the best bang for the buck on and then make sure we have a domestic source for shell production.

One last thing for the navy: we do need our own surface transport fleet. Two oilers in the fleet is pathetic. If we can't build them within the next couple of years, that is the one off-shore purchase I would make or maybe even buy them used.

 

[Czech_pivo]

From what I can imagine: it makes sense to have our air force harmonized with the U.S. for sure. Our navy should be able to integrate as seamlessly as possible but that can be accomplished through systems integration on our own hulls i.e. radars. Armament as well since our most reliable source for re-loads is our home base so either we build it in Canada or we buy U.S. As for army, the odds of going to war in America are slim to nil unless we plan to invade Washington again so in my mind our army needs to be equipped as an expeditionary force deployment abroad. They will be needed in Europe, or possibly Africa (fingers crossed that doesn't happen) and places that won't need the fancy American gear. The army doesn't require integration with the Americans it simply needs to be able to work with it. Ukraine has shown that anything goes so buy the Swedish CV90 or the Korean tank or whatever we can get the best bang for the buck on and then make sure we have a domestic source for shell production.

One last thing for the navy: we do need our own surface transport fleet. Two oilers in the fleet is pathetic. If we can't build them within the next couple of years, that is the one off-shore purchase I would make or maybe even buy them used.

Interesting thought on buying them used - maybe the powers that be that read/contribute to this site can pass that idea back to the Government. Add buying a pair of used/in good shape, US AOR's to the trade agreement package, along with the announcing the HIMARS and F35's. That covers off the trifecta - Air Force, Army and Navy.