Canadian politics maybe getting interesting!

[anitram]

So our moron of a Prime Minister announced via the Minister of Finance that they are going to cut public election financing. The way it works is that for each vote that a party receives during an election, it gets $1.95 from the government, which allows smaller opposition parties a somewhat equal ground. In total, this results in some $30 million overall, or about 10% of the overall spending during a national election. They are now claiming that since there is a recession, this magnificent sum of $30 million must immediately be cut from the Canadian budget.

The Conservatives, who raise more than 60% of their funds from large corporate donors don't give a shit about this money, so you can understand their motivations. Furthermore, the main opposition party, the Liberals, currently has a leader whom they are replacing at the end of April, so they are in the midst of a leadership race. Harper therefore thought that the Liberals would go along with this because it would not be in their interest to force an election.

But now the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, who together have enough MPs to constitute a majority have given Harper until Monday to reverse his position or they are bringing down the government. This would mean a new election....which Harper could be hoping for since the opposition has no leader and no money. EXCEPT now the NDP is saying they will push for other constitutional means of preventing an election. They can do this by asking the governor general not to call an election.

The opposition parties can also unite and form a leftist coalition which would then govern through the Liberals.

Of course, the more likely outcome will be that the idiot Harper changes his mind by Monday having realized that he totally misread the opposition and stepped in a gigantic piece of crap. This will likely all cause a massive embarrassment for him in the end.

It's nice to know that the Conservatives are out there working on important things like stimulating the economy, and not being complete assholes.

 

[financeguy]

So our moron of a Prime Minister announced via the Minister of Finance that they are going to cut public election financing. The way it works is that for each vote that a party receives during an election, it gets $1.95 from the government, which allows smaller opposition parties a somewhat equal ground. In total, this results in some $30 million overall, or about 10% of the overall spending during a national election. They are now claiming that since there is a recession, this magnificent sum of $30 million must immediately be cut from the Canadian budget.

The Conservatives, who raise more than 60% of their funds from large corporate donors don't give a shit about this money, so you can understand their motivations.

Cuts both ways, the motivation of left wing parties to have taxpayer funding may be motivated by their fear that their ideas simply aren't popular enough to get enough financial support from the general public!

Why should tax payers have to fund political parties, concerns regarding large corporations controlling policy can surely be addressed by strict rules on disclosure and limits.

 

[anitram]

You can reasonably have that discussion, and you can come up with other ways of funding (there are a number of alternate proposals that have floated around and are worthy of discussion).

But that is not the point here. The point is that we are in a recession and our government, 45 days after being elected into a minority has chosen to do nothing productive, and instead is agitating the opposition with nonsense that has resulted in a massive backlash. They are doing it in the most brazen of ways because they thought if they could force an election and compete against a leaderless party and 2 other parties who have no funding, they could easily make up the 10 or so seats that they are missing from forming a majority. In this recession, they want to cut $30 million but are fine with forcing a new $300 million election - just brilliant.

For example, here are snippets from the National Post, a right-leaning paper:

An election might catch the Liberals financially flat-footed and between leaders, but the public outrage at a election-triggering stunt perpetrated by the prime minister would unleash a backlash of historic proportions - and the reaction would be angriest in Quebec.

While the merits of political funding might be worth a debate during calm prosperous times, it has no place on an agenda that should now be devoted to important decisions.

The result of such reckless shenanigans would be a $300-million electoral exercise at the precise moment the country needs firm and united parliamentary leadership the most.

To put the entire federal bureaucracy on hiatus, which always happens during a writ period, so financially insolvent parties can clash over a $30-million savings, would trigger an unholy public brouhaha, not only against the unforgivable waste of money and time but for the risk of exacerbated economic damage while the MPs hustle votes.

While not as politically egregious, the fiscal update was almost as pointless as Harper’s move to use his economic update as stealth cover to sabotage his political opponents.

...

There’s a thin line between a government putting on its best face to stare down a gloomy situation and practicing fiscal delusion. With this document, Finance Minister Flaherty crossed the line.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Holy *#$, I knew about the proposed cuts to public election financing but hadn't realized until I read your post that the opposition is seriously considering toppling the Conservatives.

The Globe & Mail seems to update the situation on a regular basis:
globeandmail.com: Angry opposition parties holding coalition talks

And I must say, I was starting to warm to Harper in recent weeks - he seemed to be reaching out to the parties and the provinces in ways he never did in his first term. So much for that

 

[anitram]

We might have a constitutional crisis! Woo, King-Byng revisited, it's only been since 1926!

 

[VintagePunk]

Political schadenfreude.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Ignatieff at the helm


(or perhaps Paul Martin? Apparently, Sheila Copps said some Libs are trying to bring him back )

 

[VintagePunk]

This made me laugh out loud:

Conservative MPs seemed thunderstruck late Thursday by the possibility that their second term might be coming to an abrupt end.

Piling onto a parliamentary shuttle bus, they were heard incredulously asking opposition MPs if they're serious about forming a coalition.

 

[purpleoscar]

Points to consider:

- During the election the Quebecois were for the Conservatives until they brought ideas of punishing criminals harder (Oh no!) and reducing wasteful arts spending (Oh no!).

The Bloc get most of their campaign money off of the taxpayer. With that gone it will be political revenge against a fake seperatist party that backstabbed Harper over entitlements. Try winning an election with a seperatist party and raising your own funds Bloc Quebecois!

- The liberals were getting ready to attack Harper on deficit spending that economists in the G20 requested, but by having a balanced budget with no stimulus it forced the opposition to demand a stimulus thus making them agree to a deficit (Awesome move)

Now if there is a ruling coalition of 4 left wing parties it will be the most left wing government in recent memory leading to, (guess what?), deficits.

Also the current stimulus and deficit is not having the effect in the U.S. as expected so waiting for Obama and looking at the U.S. results gives Canada an opportunity to avoid leaping over the cliff after them.

I think Harper is the smartest guy in the Parliament.

 

[purpleoscar]

Cuts both ways, the motivation of left wing parties to have taxpayer funding may be motivated by their fear that their ideas simply aren't popular enough to get enough financial support from the general public!

Why should tax payers have to fund political parties, concerns regarding large corporations controlling policy can surely be addressed by strict rules on disclosure and limits.

Stop making sense!

Taking away taxpayer entitlements from government bureaucrats is like flushing cocaine down a toilet for cocaine addicts.

They go through natural withdrawal symptoms.

 

[anitram]

I think Harper is the smartest guy in the Parliament.

I think Harper thinks so. Which is why he acted this way without giving any real thought to it.

 

[purpleoscar]

I think my post shows that there was LOTS of thought into it. If the left is going to attack deficit spending and defend deficit spending and maybe create a new government that gets involved in deficit spending it would be much better than incurring a deficit for the conservatives and getting attacked for it like ducks in a barrel.

I would love to see 4 left wing parties (which includes a crappy seperatist party) trying to run government and passing bad economic policies. They would be ruined in future elections. Canadians want an economic recovery and they won't get that with 4 left wing parties running the government. Remember most of the left wing parties ran the last election with platforms that have multiple times the spending of the conservatives meaning there would be a HUGE deficit if they won even with higher taxes. You can't collect much more money in a recession when companies have losses. You only pay taxes when there are profits.

Harper knows that politics isn't just about comparing ideas and getting the best ones. The best ideas have to compete against oppositions that flip flop and play games to force their opinions on the winning party. The left just wants "power". They obviously don't care about the taxpayer.

 

[anitram]

The left just wants "power". They obviously don't care about the taxpayer.

Hilarious given what the Cons are doing. Just hilarious.

So they're going to save a massive $28 million, which is what our budgetary spending is EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY. That's sure going to make a huge difference. And they are willing to risk another $300 million election to save $28 million. Brilliant.

Harper wants power and he thought he'd bankrupt the other parties in the process of getting it. He's also just basically lost all Con seats in Quebec, without which he can't get to a majority anyway.

Hugely bad and brazen move.

 

[BoMac]

You know, it's funny. By reading what you're (purpleoscar) saying, it would seem that a left-leaning party in power inherently means deficit spending.

However, it would seem—and correct me if I'm wrong—that the Conservative Mulroney years left the country more in debt and in deficit. This was followed by the Chretien/Martin years where the books were balanced, surpluses generated, and the economy was in great shape.

Was that all a dream?

 

[purpleoscar]

You know, it's funny. By reading what you're (purpleoscar) saying, it would seem that a left-leaning party in power inherently means deficit spending.

However, it would seem—and correct me if I'm wrong—that the Conservative Mulroney years left the country more in debt and in deficit. This was followed by the Chretien/Martin years where the books were balanced, surpluses generated, and the economy was in great shape.

Was that all a dream?

Was it a dream when seniors protested funding cuts from Mulroney? Yet cutting health spending was okay for Paul Martin.

Was it a dream when GST was introduced to pay down debt and Chretien was against it and now the biggest defenders of the GST are liberals?

It's politics and different administrations do different things. Why would it be a surprise that Mulroney is different than Harper and Chretien is different than Martin?

The truth is that liberals knew anybody in this situation may go into a deficit and they were being unfair (per usual in politics) by criticizing Harper for going into a deficit but when the budget was balanced and Conservatives only offered a stimulus when there was a need, the opposition attacked them for no current stimulus forcing them to agree with the deficit that would come naturally from stimulus spending at this time. The left is trying to have it both ways.

The left is playing games and Harper is not going to sit there and get shot like fish in a barrel with deficit criticism. Maybe Stockwell Day would just sit there and take it, but Harper knows real politik in Canada. All the Keynesian economists in the G20 are telling people to go into a deficit. I don't think it works but I'm not the "expert" telling the politicians. Why don't liberals stand up for a consistent message instead of talking about Mulroney. "Ah Mulroney the good old days when Conservatives fell into liberal traps." Not anymore. I would love to see 4 left wing parties (including a seperatist party) trying to the run the country. Do you think they can do a better job?

Anyways with the spending freeze in government employment spending it may irk entitled people who have fantastic pensions that private sector workers don't have access to, but why should people lose jobs and have to pay taxes on their employment income plus welfare payments for 2008 or 2009 while government workers can spend all their wages with a nice pension waiting for them and unions to protect their jobs? Bureaucracy is the new aristocracy and it's about time Canadians get fed up with the double standard. Screw campaigns funded by taxpayers (especially seperatist parties). There should be just one liberal party and one conservative party so we don't get horse trading style politics that reminds me of Italy, Israel and New Zealand. The voters want to see one clear plan and judge the results of that plan each election so their opinion of the best ideas wins.

Another point on climate change. If Obama and Europe and most of the world want to do cap and trade which forces Harper to embrace it then maybe it would be good to see 4 left wing parties introduce environmentalist policies that will constrict businesses that supply our energy during a recession instead? Then the conservatives can move that off the plate to the left. When that fails like it did in Europe then Conservatives will have an opportunity to be the cure. If the conservatives stay in power and adopt bad environmental policies that the world supported, how could Liberals and NDP say they would be different? There's so many political options available.

 

[anitram]

Are you not aware of the fact that the Bloc has abandoned its sovereignty plank and so as things stand they are essentially little more than a Francophone leftist party? Your sovereignty ranting is very indicative of living in Alberta, I think you're parroting a lot of the party line re: Quebec when in reality the Bloc's position at the present time is nothing like what you are suggesting.

This is why a coalition was never feasible before but may now be.

The French papers in Quebec are reporting that Layton has only asked for two cabinet positions in a coalition - Minister of Finance and Minister of the Environment. So he is not exactly being onerous.

 

[purpleoscar]

Are you not aware of the fact that the Bloc has abandoned its sovereignty plank and so as things stand they are essentially little more than a Francophone leftist party? Your sovereignty ranting is very indicative of living in Alberta, I think you're parroting a lot of the party line re: Quebec when in reality the Bloc's position at the present time is nothing like what you are suggesting.

This is why a coalition was never feasible before but may now be.

The French papers in Quebec are reporting that Layton has only asked for two cabinet positions in a coalition - Minister of Finance and Minister of the Environment. So he is not exactly being onerous.

They are just a French NDP. Why don't they just join them?

I've already discussed the perils of a leftist coalition with a deficit. Have fun with that.

 

[anitram]

They are just a French NDP.

Then why do you keep ranting about "separatists"?

 

[purpleoscar]

Then why do you keep ranting about "separatists"?

If they are not separatists then why don't they join the NDP? The only difference in their platforms in the past was Separation. It's a duplication of parties. They should get their funding like everybody else by people who volunteer their support. Let's see them win elections on their muddled goals. What is the point of having the left split by Liberal, Bloc, NDP, and Green? It's not a rant. It's a good question. There needs to be a purpose to a political party. Quebec already has a provincial government so why have a Federal party that is only elected in a province?

Come to think of it why aren't the Greens part of the NDP? There's not enough difference between Bloc, NDP and Greens to justify separate parties. Even if they all joined there would be 2 left leaning parties. It's like Reform vs. PC. It's pointless.

 

[anitram]

You obviously don't know anything about the Green platform if you think that there is not enough difference between them and the NDP and Bloc.

The Green Party is actually very fiscally conservative as compared to the other two parties. Look up their tax policies and proposals for an idea. Most people seem to look at Green voters, who appear to be very left of centre and confuse that with the agenda of the Green Party, which also has considerably more conservative social views than the NDP.

 

[purpleoscar]

The Green Party is actually very fiscally conservative as compared to the other two parties.

I don't believe them but if you want the last word you can have it.

 

[BoMac]

I don't believe them but if you want the last word you can have it.

Why should we believe the Conservatives then?

 

[VintagePunk]

You know, it's funny. By reading what you're (purpleoscar) saying, it would seem that a left-leaning party in power inherently means deficit spending.

However, it would seem—and correct me if I'm wrong—that the Conservative Mulroney years left the country more in debt and in deficit. This was followed by the Chretien/Martin years where the books were balanced, surpluses generated, and the economy was in great shape.

Was that all a dream?

No. I've pointed that out here before, the myth that conservatism in power equals balanced budgets, where liberalism equals deficit spending, both here and in the US. Conservatives don't like to look at reality, though. The myth is much more appealing to them.

 

[purpleoscar]

No. I've pointed that out here before, the myth that conservatism in power equals balanced budgets, where liberalism equals deficit spending, both here and in the US. Conservatives don't like to look at reality, though. The myth is much more appealing to them.

If Liberals win a possible new election or run a new coalition I will love to see them cut programs to balance the budget. I'll hold them to it.

 

[VintagePunk]

They probably won't be able to initially, given the economic climate, but once things turn around they will.

With all this disdain for Keynesian economics you hold, you've never explained what is supposed to happen while waiting for the economy/market to straighten itself out. Should a significant part of the population be left to suffer while things straighten themselves out without intervention? If so, that's brutal. It's fine in theory, but when you're talking about real human suffering, theory doesn't (or shouldn't) always apply.

 

[purpleoscar]

They probably won't be able to initially, given the economic climate, but once things turn around they will.

With all this disdain for Keynesian economics you hold, you've never explained what is supposed to happen while waiting for the economy/market to straighten itself out. Should a significant part of the population be left to suffer while things straighten themselves out without intervention? If so, that's brutal. It's fine in theory, but when you're talking about real human suffering, theory doesn't (or shouldn't) always apply.

If you read the Obama's plan thread I started you will see my arguments. Many of them relate to what individuals can do.

We have 40% of the economy controlled by the public sector so people won't starve. Most people won't lose their jobs. Even during the depression there was 75% of people who looked for work found it. Those people should save and pay down their debts so they are more confident. That's how the economy improves. This top down coaxing to get people to spend ignores the fact that many consumers are tapped out. Savings is simply a buffer for expenses to help you with periodic unemployment and retirement.

We have lots of institutional social programs that exist (that were supposed to elminate poverty ) and the left looks at every down cycle as a way to increase the size of government. I know this for a fact since I went to Sociology class where this was used as a good strategy by the instructor to give people government jobs and to increase their influence. Bloating the deficit really big will make it hard to do the cuts necessary in the future to balance the budget because cutting government jobs leads to loud protest.

Then the only option at that point is to increase taxes and fees solidifying the new size of government. People have to ask themselves how much government is enough for them and not be so credulous about social programs like they are really going to eliminate negative consequences for people's bad choices. We have so much government yet there are still homeless. That shows it's mainly up to us on how we can succeed. Even low paying jobs can allow for motivated people to inact deep savings that requires self-discipline to achieve financial independence goals. At least in this country that is possible. In most of the world the systems don't have enough freedom to allow it. I don't think we need 60-80% in the hands of the government. The programs we have now can feed the population.

Of course I could just abandon my beliefs and just push as hard as possible to get a good government job and join the left and I can be the good guy talking about the poor and get nice retirement benefits and retire at the age of 50 and leave the taxpayer with a bill. Sounds like a plan!

 

[VintagePunk]

You are so out of touch with the realities that many people face that it seems pointless to attempt discussion with you. I guess I should have known that from the time that you advised Lila to take out a student loan. I'll learn my lesson eventually, I guess.

All you do is come back with Conservative talking points based in theory that's useless when people are really hurting, oftentimes due to situations out of their control. Rather than pick your post apart point by point, I'll just say that the reasons for poverty, dealing with job loss, and the struggles of the working poor are not black and white, and your overly simplistic, black and white solutions can't be applied to all cases.

You seem so damn smug when you preach your usual crap, as if you have all the answers. Trust me, you don't. I sincerely and genuinely mean that. Wow.

 

[anitram]

Of course I could just abandon my beliefs and just push as hard as possible to get a good government job and join the left and I can be the good guy talking about the poor and get nice retirement benefits and retire at the age of 50 and leave the taxpayer with a bill. Sounds like a plan!

Yeah, because all of us on the left do that for a living.

Give me a break.

 

[BVS]

You are so out of touch with the realities that many people face that it seems pointless to attempt discussion with you. I guess I should have known that from the time that you advised Lila to take out a student loan. I'll learn my lesson eventually, I guess.

All you do is come back with Conservative talking points based in theory that's useless when people are really hurting, oftentimes due to situations out of their control. Rather than pick your post apart point by point, I'll just say that the reasons for poverty, dealing with job loss, and the struggles of the working poor are not black and white, and your overly simplistic, black and white solutions can't be applied to all cases.

You seem so damn smug when you preach your usual crap, as if you have all the answers. Trust me, you don't. I sincerely and genuinely mean that. Wow.

So true.

This poster is completely out of touch with reality, economics, and looking at this thread I may even know more about the workings going on within his countries own political parties...

It's just theories(which often he doesn't even understand) and mantras...

 

[anitram]

I don't believe them but if you want the last word you can have it.

I'm sorry but that's the most ridiculous line of argument you've used yet and that's saying a lot.

So you've deemed the NDP and the Greens to be the same because YOU think that the Green platform is a lie and so you're going with your own definition of what the party stands for.

Great. Then the Conservatives are the same as the Liberals. I don't believe their platform, but if you want the last word you can have it.