Winter Election?

[xFusilier]

Funny. Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell stated in the 1993 election that a General Election was no time to discuss serious issues, and she was pilloried by all sides. Not that I generally disagree with the statement, but, by and large, issues such as immigration and how the Constitution is applied should be discussed during an election. How better to know the views of the party that you're voting for?

Unfortunately there are members of the Conservative party who believe that an electon is a great time to comment on issues that are outside of the party platform or if they are in the party platform, have completly nothing to do with the price of Tea in China.  This ammounts to usually one or two members of the party usually Jason Kenny or Myron Thompson commiting political seppuku for the entire party in the middle of a general election.

To be quite frank the reason that the Conservatives have not and will not form a government is they are bad politicians.  Honesty is not a virtue in politics, never was and never will be, people, quite frankly, have an unconcious expectation of being lied to.  People don't really care if you make unpopular decisions in the four years your in power as long as once every four years for a couple of weeks you tell them what they want to hear.

 

[a_majoor]

Frankly, the best result which will come from all this will be another minorety Liberal government. Why?

1. Paul Martin will go down in flames, his political career effectively ending then and there

2. With Mr Dithers out of the way, the knives will be out in the Liberal party, and there will be lots of people who will be more than willing to dig up dirt about ADSCAM, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Shawinigate etc. if it will discredit potential rivals or sink rival factions in the party

3. There is no "bench strength" in the Liberal party, and people will realize what a very thin slate is being offered up as potential post Martin leaders and cabinet ministers (although this should have been obvious a long time ago).

4. With the Liberals holding a minorety and consumed by in fighting, a lot of their "Really Bad Ideas"tm like Koyoto, National Day Care and other potential spending sink holes will never see the light of day. As taxpayer protection that is something worth fighting for.

While this isn't the ideal solution, it works well enough for now, and several Conservative platform planks like tax relief will certainly be actioned (like they are doing now) in an attempt to stave off total disaster.

As for the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper crowd, I just have one quick question: how is the "hidden agenda"tm of tax cuts and privatization "scary" compared to the Liberals "open agenda" of theft?

 

[Cloud Cover]

As for the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper crowd, I just have one quick question: how is the "hidden agenda"tm of tax cuts and privatization "scary" compared to the Liberals "open agenda" of theft?

LOL- why did you trademark "hidden agenda" with the common law mark? Did I miss the memo on that one?

There's nothing scary about privatization, unless you are the one being privatized. I must admit I don't know much about the consrvative tax cuts, since one would require a pretty hefty income to see any benefit of a tax cut without also cutting it's evil sister- red tape.

Cheers

 

[Monsoon]

Frankly, the best result which will come from all this will be another minorety Liberal government. Why?

1. Paul Martin will go down in flames, his political career effectively ending then and there

2. With Mr Dithers out of the way, the knives will be out in the Liberal party, and there will be lots of people who will be more than willing to dig up dirt about ADSCAM, the Billion Dollar Boondoggle, Shawinigate etc. if it will discredit potential rivals or sink rival factions in the party

No it won't.  This is exactly what would (and will) happen in a party as fractious, disorganized and incoherently-directed as the Conservatives.  The federal Liberals have always been good at regrouping.

3. There is no "bench strength" in the Liberal party, and people will realize what a very thin slate is being offered up as potential post Martin leaders and cabinet ministers (although this should have been obvious a long time ago).

Do you suppose people don't also realize that there is literally no "bench strength" in the Tories?  The only Conservative with any cabinet experience, federal or provincial, that I can think of is Tony Clement, Health Minister in Harris' oh-so-effective Ontario cabinet.  The rest of them are former municipal politicians and nobodies who decided to hitch their cart on what they thought was a rising star.  Sounds like small-town cheap, to me.

4. With the Liberals holding a minorety and consumed by in fighting, a lot of their "Really Bad Ideas"tm like Koyoto, National Day Care and other potential spending sink holes will never see the light of day. As taxpayer protection that is something worth fighting for.

Heard of Kyoto lately? Or National Daycare, for that matter?  No - because the Martin crew have done a good job of burying that nonsense.  The only thing that will force National Daycare is another minority where they have to rely on the NDP.

As for the anti-Conservative, anti-Harper crowd, I just have one quick question: how is the "hidden agenda"tm of tax cuts and privatization "scary" compared to the Liberals "open agenda" of theft?

It's scarier because the Tory hidden agenda includes theft and corruption.  Remember the Mulroney years?  Everyone swaggers into town crowing about cleaning up shop, but its the ability to actually govern effectively that really matters to voters.  The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.  The last federal Conservative government suffered scandals as serious as the Sponsorship Scandal every year, whereas the Liberal record of mismanagement is relatively short.

Since we're swapping predictions, here another: the next federal election - no matter when it is eventually held - will result in a stronger Liberal minority or Liberal majority government.  Harper's career as leader of the Conservatives is (deservedly) already over.

 

[a_majoor]

Heard of Kyoto lately? Or National Daycare, for that matter?  No - because the Martin crew have done a good job of burying that nonsense.  The only thing that will force National Daycare is another minority where they have to rely on the NDP.

These spending sinkholes are not officially off the table, and I would suspect they will come to the fore when the next election comes (whenever that happens). There is good reason to suspect the reason we are not hearing about it is the government is in dissarray over Gomrey and other scandals (real or potential), and the focus of their efforts right now is to deflect whatever fallout from the scandal onto Creitien and stratagize a way of avoiding a vote of no confidence (at least until they are ready to call an election).

It's scarier because the Tory hidden agenda includes theft and corruption.  Remember the Mulroney years?  Everyone swaggers into town crowing about cleaning up shop, but its the ability to actually govern effectively that really matters to voters.  The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.  The last federal Conservative government suffered scandals as serious as the Sponsorship Scandal every year, whereas the Liberal record of mismanagement is relatively short.

I do remember the Mulroney years. Let's see, there was clear direction and action on tax reform (the GST, flattened tax rates and reduced tax brackets), the economy (FTA, crushing inflation), and international relations (NAFTA, taking a stand against South Africa, White paper on Defence). While you might not agree with what actions were taken or the end results achieved, at least we had form and direction. Since the end of the Conservative era, the Liberals have done nothing but were content to drift on the Conservative tide in terms of national direction. I daresay their record of mismanagement is certainly equal to if not greater than anything ever uncovered during the Mulrouney years.

If Martin doesn't deliver a majority (and without Quebec, that won't happen), then he is toast. Perhaps the Liberals will not succumb to infighting, but there are lots of indications (the fallout from the Gomrey report, for example) which suggest otherwise. At any rate, lets get them away from the public trough.

 

[kcdist]

It's scarier because the Tory hidden agenda includes theft and corruption.   Remember the Mulroney years?   Everyone swaggers into town crowing about cleaning up shop, but its the ability to actually govern effectively that really matters to voters.   The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.   The last federal Conservative government suffered scandals as serious as the Sponsorship Scandal every year, whereas the Liberal record of mismanagement is relatively short.

Most true conservatives realized later on in the Mulroney years that, although they introduced financial legislation that has been overall benificial for the country (Free Trade, GST), as a whole, the senior leadership was as corrupt as the Liberal Party of today. That is why voters such as myself deserted in droves to the then newly formed Reform party.

As an aside, I remember one incident when the Progressive Conservatives were in power, a newly minted Quebecois defence minister made his first order of business the mandatory replacement of all syrup in mess halls with genuine Made in Quebec Maple Syrup. That got my goat more that anything. But I digress.....

The difference between Liberal supporters of today and Progressive Conservative supporters in 1993 is that the true conservatives realized their leadership was corrupt and took the appropriate action. The Liberal supporter seems so keen to give 'one more last chance'.

The new Conservative party bears little if any resemblance to the Progressive Conservative party of old. The Conservatives no longer pander to Quebec (Remember the CF-18 maintenance contract). It has, however, introduced policies that should encourage Quebecors, such as more provincial autonomy. Moreover, the cancerous element of the old party, Red Tories such as Joe Clark, are no longer part of the equation.

Are there guarantees there won't be corruption in the new Conservative party? No....but I like it's chances. One of the reasons Stephen Harper may not be so popular back East, is that he is not a typical politician. He often says what he believes to be right, rather than waiting for polling to tell him what to say. He is an academic and is perhaps the first leader in a generation to possess a higher IQ than most of the posters on this board. Most importantly, I believe that he does not possess the sense of entitlement that has inflicted all of our recent leaders.  Colour me an optoimist.....That said, I would be the first to move my support on the first whiff of corruption (Billion Dollar Boondoggle, 2 Billion dollar Gun Registry, Shawinagate, Robbing National Defence of $100 million for unneeded Ministerial jets, and on, and on and on)

Final point. If you are going to use the term 'hidden agenda', have the courtesy to explain what you think it means. If you wish it no longer to be 'hidden' to someone such as yourself, take the time to visit the web site. You may not agree with it all, but it certainly isn't hidden. Most of the posters on this board are intelligent enough not to be swayed by the use of tired cliches void of meaning to all but the most gullible.

 

[xFusilier]

The reason that Stephen Harper is unpopular in the East is that many of the old-time members of his party...that being the REEEEEFORM Party (a rose by any other name) persist in casting their stereotypical biases about Easterners and Ontario in public without realizing that eventually they are going to have to go and ask these people to vote for them.  Their party platform on too many issues seems to mirror that of neo-conservatives in the United States, and the average Joe or Jane in this country tends to take their national identity from how we are unlike Americans (rather than being proud of what this nation has accomplished but that's fodder for another thread).  That and I really don't need to taste a big heapin helpin of reheated Reganomics to know its going to taste like ass.  Someone once said to me that Stephen Harper, in attempting to commit suicide would discover the secret of eternal life.  The Conservative make a great opposition party, and as such form a good balance to some of the more extreme members of the Liberal Caucus, but as a party they are not yet ready for prime time.  It is only when the Conservative party realizes that they have to change to suit the voters and not the other way around that they will ever stand a chance of forming the government (and lets face it they've basically been saying the same general...less taxes...blah,blah,blah...no gay marriage....blah,blah,blah...lets renegotiate the relationship between the crown and aboriginals...blah,blah,blah...repeal gun control...blah,blah,blah thing since the 1992 General Election and they haven't got any takers)
I am disappointed by this fact because I think that one party in power for the better part of 20 years is not a good thing for the country...well that and I think the Liberals are ideological scumbags who believe in nothing more than moving whatever way the windblows to stay in power.  Notwithstanding my dislike of the Liberals that certainly does not mean that I am going to vote Conservative by default.  Basically with the demise of the old Tories there really is no home for a socially liberal, fiscal pragmatist who believes in the benefits of a mixed economy so should we have another federal election I think I'm going to give the Greens a good look or the Marijuana Party...because if the current political hopelessness keeps up like this I'm gonna need to be stoned.

 

[Infanteer]

Jack Layton has said that the NDP are going to call for a February election; looks like the Liberals lost their last leg to stand on.  All this wishy-washy debate over unwritten Parliamentary procedure is pissing me off; this is why I don't believe in unwritten Constitutional laws - they have no real moral authority and can be bent by any government that figures it can get away with it.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Unfortunately for Jack Layton, he doesn't make policy. He can have all the pie in the sky ideas on how he wants to see it unfold, but in truth, when the Gov't falls, the GG will decide when we go to the polls.

 

[Hunter]

Based on what I've seen it is incorrect to say that Ontarians don't want an election.  I live in Ottawa, and people here definitely want an election.  The informal polls and surveys done by the local media are all pretty consistent that approximately 85-90% of respondents want an election ASAP.

I also think it is incorrect to say that the Conservatives are a big ideological leap from the Liberals.  The fact is there are more similarities than differences in their platforms and in my opinion the few good ideas in the Liberal policy platform are the ones they borrowed from the Tories.

The coming election offers an interesting choice.  A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the status quo and the acceptance of this criminal behaviour by the party.  An NDP vote is a vote for a party that will sell it's integrity if the price is right. A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for a well-intentioned group of people who no matter how hard they try can't seem to find their collective arse with both hands. 

 

[Monsoon]

Jack Layton has said that the NDP are going to call for a February election; looks like the Liberals lost their last leg to stand on.  All this wishy-washy debate over unwritten Parliamentary procedure is pissing me off; this is why I don't believe in unwritten Constitutional laws - they have no real moral authority and can be bent by any government that figures it can get away with it.

It's not exactly unwritten, it's just based on precedent rather than one central all-encompassing document.  This sort of a "live" system is exactly the same way the commonlaw legal system works, and it means that the system can evolve over time without any single individual shaping it excessively.  You're right that it does promote stability - but that's only frustrating if you're on the other side of fence from the way things are.

In any case, Layton's proposal is highly questionable.  The government doesn't have to act on opposition motions that aren't non-confidence and the opposition can't just rub the genie's lamp and wish for unlimited wishes, which is exactly what they're trying to do by voting to have a vote in January.  The government will probably ignore the vote and conduct business as usual.  It's getting a bit silly, really - if the opposition is willing to wait until mid-January to call a mid-February election, why not wait until March?

 

[S McKee]

Unfortunately there are members of the Conservative party who believe that an electon is a great time to comment on issues that are outside of the party platform or if they are in the party platform, have completly nothing to do with the price of Tea in China.   This ammounts to usually one or two members of the party usually Jason Kenny or Myron Thompson commiting political seppuku for the entire party in the middle of a general election.

To be quite frank the reason that the Conservatives have not and will not form a government is they are bad politicians.   Honesty is not a virtue in politics, never was and never will be, people, quite frankly, have an unconcious expectation of being lied to.   People don't really care if you make unpopular decisions in the four years your in power as long as once every four years for a couple of weeks you tell them what they want to hear.

Your bang on with that assessment! Says alot about the intelligence of the electorate though, doesn't it?

 

[xFusilier]

True, but then again what's more likely to change the intellegence of a party or the intellegence of the electorate, or my intellegence seeing as I think that I just misspelled intellegence for the third oops no fourth time.

 

[S McKee]

Unfortunately you just answered my question. So will it be a lib majority or minority? I think every single vote west of Sask should count as two.

 

[xFusilier]

My call a lib majority  :again.  My whole point is that conservative have to start blaming their party for their poor showing and not the electorate (I fail to see the correlation between western longitude and political wisdom).  What was that definition of insanity: reapeating the same action and expecting a different result?

 

[S McKee]

The further you are away from the centre of the universe, the better you can see it for what it really is.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>The public remembers that the last federal Conservative government nearly drove the country into the ground, and that the Liberals saved it and brought its most prosperous position in years.

There's the problem, then: the public memory is incorrect.  A look at the federal revenue/expense/debt service figures since 1970 tells the story exactly the way it was: Liberal governments created nearly every dollar of the federal debt.

 

[Infanteer]

...and, since I love showing my Uncle who blames everything shitty in Canada on Mulroney, I found Brad's stats to point to the veracity of his statement above!

Ah, who created the debt?

Figures are from 88-7E "Federal Deficit - Changing Trends" (from 2000 forward, they are estimates).  I have inserted federal election results where applicable with dates taken from the Library of Parliament web site.

"Surplus" is either deficit (-) or surplus (+).

"Operating surplus" is net (revenue-expenses), without debt charges (think of it as your monthly budget without the credit card interest - if any).

Net public debt is as described.

A positive operating surplus means a government pulled in more revenue than it budgeted to spend, without considering debt charges.  A government that recorded a positive operating surplus can claim to have balanced the budget, but that is like claiming you have a balanced budget while ignoring the interest on your credit card.

Year (ending 31 March)    Surplus    Operating Surplus    Gross Debt Charges    Net Public Debt

[25 June 1968: Liberal majority, Trudeau]
1970-71                      -1,016            871                        1,887                  20,293
1971-72                      -1,786            324                        2,110                  22,079
[30 October 1972: Liberal minority with NDP support, Trudeau]
1972-73                      -1,901            399                        2,300                  23,980
1973-74                      -2,211            354                        2,565                  26,191
[08 July 1974: Liberal majority, Trudeau]
1974-75                      -2,225          1,013                        3,238                  28,416
1975-76                      -6,205        -2,235                        3,970                  34,620
1976-77                      -6,896        -2,188                        4,708                  41,517
1977-78                    -10,879        -5,348                        5,531                  52,396
1978-79                    -13,029        -6,005                        7,024                  65,425
[22 May 1979: Conservative minority, Clark]
[18 February 1980: Liberal majority, Trudeau]
1979-80                    -11,967        -3,473                        8,494                  77,392
1980-81                    -14,556        -3,898                      10,658                  91,948
1981-82                    -15,674            -560                      15,114                107,622
1982-83                    -29,049      -12,146                      16,903                136,671
1983-84                    -32,877      -14,800                      18,077                169,549
[04 September 1984: Conservative majority, Mulroney]
1984-85                    -38,437      -16,044                      22,393                207,986
1985-86                    -34,595        -9,173                      25,422                242,581
1986-87                    -30,742        -4,074                      26,668                273,323
1987-88                    -27,794          1,159                      28,953                301,117
[21 November 1988: Conservative majority, Mulroney]
1988-89                    -28,773          4,379                      33,152                329,890
1989-90                    -28,930          9,859                      38,789                358,820
1990-91                    -32,000        10,588                      42,588                390,820
1991-92                    -34,357          6,817                      41,174                425,177
1992-93                    -41,021        -2,196                      38,825                466,198
[25 October 1993: Liberal majority, Chretien]
1993-94                    -42,012          -4,030                      37,982                508,210
1994-95                    -37,462          4,584                      42,046                545,672
1995-96                    -28,617          18,288                    46,905                574,289
1996-97                    -8,897          36,076                    44,973                583,186
[02 June 1997: Liberal majority, Chretien]
1997-98                      3,478          44,409                    40,931                579,708
1998-99                      2,884          44,278                    41,394                576,824
1999-00                            0          44,500                    41,500                576,800
[27 November 2000: Liberal majority, Chretien]
2000-01                            0          46,000                    42,000                576,800
2001-02                            0          46,500                    41,500                576,800

Things to note in the period covered:

1) Trudeau governments never gripped the deficit (although the early 70's saw balanced operating budgets) and went on a spending spree from 1975 onward.

2) Mulroney governments gripped the operating budget quickly, but the public debt had already ballooned to a point where, combined with high interest rates, debt charges created a deficit.

3) Chretien governments were able, with dramatic spending cuts and lower interest rates, to eliminate the deficit.

 

[In the light of things]

There's no good candidate in a capitalist democracy, only good, and worse.  If there was a good one, the position of governor general would have been disabled a long time ago in my mind.

 

[In the light of things]

bad* and worse, sorry