J
jollyjacktar
Guest
The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either. The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.
I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.jollyjacktar said:The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either. The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.
E.R. Campbell said:The Globe and Mail reports that M Trudeau might be going after a potentially disenchanted group of Conservatives: "Justin Trudeau is targeting Conservative voters as he tours through Ontario in the last week of the campaign, arguing Stephen Harper has abandoned the “progressive” heritage of his Tory predecessors ... [and] ... The Liberal Leader said that in the past, PC governments fought against poverty and helped to improve Canada’s reputation on the world stage. “Those are values that haven’t disappeared, they have just disappeared from the current Conservative Party and disappeared along with anything progressive about them,” he said."
It might just work, the questions are: how many of the old Progressive Conservative Red Tories are left; and how many of those are both Red Tory and happy with the idea of new, quite unnecessary deficits?
I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.jollyjacktar said:The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either. The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.
cherry picking polls?Chris Pook said:
From ERC's EKOS posting - so with the recent uptick in the CPC returns - does that suggest the rise of the "I'll be dammed if its Anybody But Harper" franchise?
Red Tories were Tories first and foremost - The one thing Hugh Segal could be relied on was that he wasn't voting Liberal. Likewise MacKay.
If it is a choice between Trudeau Jr or Harper my money sez that the Red Tory vote will turn out for Harper.
would 30 billion dollars in debt by the feds , 2 percent tax changes either way and some infrastructure spending really make that big of a change in a 2 trillion dollar economy?Brad Sallows said:>I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.
They aren't; but another way to approach the question is which of the platforms is more likely to foul things up.
The CPC is basically running on a "steady state" platform. The other two parties promise change. Change does not guarantee improvement.
Canada has done well among the advanced and economically powerful countries of the world since the 2008 recession, placing high on many rankings. All of the countries on those lists have been working on improving their circumstances. Either Team Trudeau and Team Mulcair will outguess all those people and do better, or guess wrong - or simply apply outmoded and mistaken theories - and do worse.
1. We already know that the CPC applied a massive spending program in 2009 - which was lauded by external observers for its success at getting money into the economy quickly and spending it effectively (eg. not much loss to waste, corruption, etc) - which didn't achieve dramatic effects despite the obvious room for improvement from the recessionary trough. The LPC is basically arguing that a smaller program is going to make things better; recent experience/evidence suggests no such thing can happen. What is likely: if implemented, the LPC's program will increase the accumulated deficit (debt) by about 4% over the next 3 years, and the rate of economic growth won't be much different than if the program were never implemented.
2. The Liberal mix of tax measures will make the personal income tax structure more progressive, which makes revenue shortfalls more dramatic during recessions (higher income earners, who pay more of the taxes, tend to take greater income losses). The fiscal structure becomes less resilient.
3. The NDP wants to increase corporate taxes, and the LPC wants to increase personal taxes on high income earners. Those are basically the two groups most capable of mitigating tax exposure. There will be revenue gains for the federal government. However, because provincial tax structures are essentially similar, tax mitigation will reduce provincial revenues (unless provincial governments follow up with their own tax rate increases).
4. Conversely, federal tax rate decreases tend to decrease tax avoidance, which helps - has helped - to increase provincial revenues.
5. Provincial governments undoubtedly pocketed some gains from the federal tax rate reductions of the past couple of decades. A federal-provincial fight I foresee is demands from provinces to make up their losses if federal actions cause provincial revenues to shrink. But the NDP and LPC already have their own ideas for what they will do with any extra money they raise. Harper basically has put more money and tax points on the table and left them there for provinces. The NDP and LPC are going to take some away.
6. The TPP should be ratified. We know that's a given with the CPC, and while I doubt the LPC would reject it, the uncertainty can't be helping things. If we miss this window, it'll be even harder to make the next one.
But none of that really matters, because I doubt many people are really aware of it. Compliant media are not examining the details of the Liberal proposals. Deficits were "bad" right up until the moment the Liberals decided it was the only way to produce a pot of money to buy votes; then all sorts of talking heads jumped in spouting gibberish about "stimulus". There may be uses for deficits, but that's not one of them.
PuckChaser said:I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.
With proper centre left advisors, instead of the Orange Liberals like Gerald Butts, absolutely agree.Colin P said:Muclair running for the Liberals would have likely worked
The face and the party go hand in hand regardless of flavour as far as I'm concerned.PuckChaser said:I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.
Altair said:I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.
Colin P said:Muclair running for the Liberals would have likely worked
30 billion more dollars in a 2 trillion dollar economy isn't that significant.jollyjacktar said:They are, to my mind, the devil I know and the best of a bad lot. From my experience with Provincial Dippers, I'm damned if I want them mismanaging the country. The kid will spend my kids into the poor house. We shall have to agree to disagree.
Altair said:The conservatives (under duress and when they had a majority)