40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by mrdeeds

Look for some Liberalesque spending announcements and initiatives this Tuesday from the Conservatives, and maybe something about the economy. It will be interesting to see what they will throw out their to try to regain their lost hopes of a majority.

Just wondering how that turned out?

Harper's entire compendium of election goodies doesn't add up to $3 billion of new spending per year, and won't be implemented unless there is money in the federal till. That is in stark contrast to the NDP's $50-billion election bonanza, and the even more lavish spending spree promised by Stephane Dion and the Liberals.

"The platforms of the Opposition parties are written for an economic fantasyland," Harper said, "where money grows on trees, debts don't have to be repaid, and taxes are good for the economy."

http://www.torontosun.com/canadavote...12261-sun.html

[Incinerator]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

To win a majority, the CPC doesn't need a non-Albertan leader, but they do need a leader whose political roots aren't from the Reform/Alliance parties......

You nailed it. That's exactly the problem.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't really think that people in Alberta are that homogenous...but the distorted results of the election system make it appear that way. Same as what took place in Ontario in the 90's when Chretien virtually swept.

It's one thing for a province to be virtually homogenous during any given election cycle or even under any particular leader, as Ontario was during the Cretien years. That's fairly common. But Alberta is easily the most homogenous province historically: only one change in provincial government in the last 80 years (SoCred to Conservative), and no minority governments during that time, and only two changes in the party that we support federally in that time (Socred to Conservative to Reform - changes to alliance and conservative don't count, since those changes were basically reform party rebranding). Since 1993, the Reform/Alliance/CPCs have dominated the province in federal elections by scores of 22-4, 24-2, 24-2, 26-2, 28-0, and 28-0 (that last one is the almost certain outcome of the current election).

Though it's worth mentioning that it's not the most lopsided current streak: PEI is 24-0 for the Liberals going back to 88, but historically they aren't particularly one-sided and the Liberal domination doesn't extend to the provincial level.

[MarchHare]

^^

That's why I would get so annoyed when many CPC-supporters on this forum called the citizens of Ontario "sheep" who blindly supported the Liberals every election. During the last decade, Ontario has elected the NDP, Conservatives, and Liberals to majority governments at the provincial level. Alberta, OTOH, has had an uninterrupted Conservative dynasty for 40 years.

On the national level, it's the same story. While the Liberals dominated Ontario during the Chretien years, it was still very much a battleground, and many Liberal MPs were only elected because of vote-splitting between the PC and Reform/Alliance parties (which led directly to the "unite the right" merger). Moreso than any other region, Ontario is the province where voters are most likely to be swayed and seats can be gained or lost. The West is very solidly Conservative, Atlantic Canada is mostly Liberal, but three parties are capable of winning seats in Ontario (and Quebec too, for that matter, with the Bloc, Liberals, and Conservatives all being competitive).

[Ronald Pagan]

Harper's entire compendium of election goodies doesn't add up to $3 billion of new spending per year, and won't be implemented unless there is money in the federal till. That is in stark contrast to the NDP's $50-billion election bonanza, and the even more lavish spending spree promised by Stephane Dion and the Liberals.

This is bad policy. When entering a recession governments should spend more not less. Fiscal austerity by governments in the early 1930s turned a recession into a depression.

In either case, it's not accurate to say that the Liberals will spend more. Infact, the amount of bald-faced lying committed by the Conservatives over the Green Shift is frankly disgraceful and sullying this election. They Liberals will spend no more than they earn through their new tax. Government receipts and expenditures will be very similar to current levels.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

[/b]This is bad policy. When entering a recession governments should spend more not less. Fiscal austerity by governments in the early 1930s turned a recession into a depression.

In either case, it's not accurate to say that the Liberals will spend more. Infact, the amount of bald-faced lying committed by the Conservatives over the Green Shift is frankly disgraceful and sullying this election. They Liberals will spend no more than they earn through their new tax. Government receipts and expenditures will be very similar to current levels.

Harper was interviewed on CBC last night and the silliness of his position was exposed. Basically he won't raise taxes and won't go into deficit...so he has one plan to deal with things and no wiggle room. (I'm not saying that the others are any better here, but he was the only one interviewed).

[Ronald Pagan]

Agreed. I really question if Harper remembers anything from his economics degree. The government's economic policies have, by-in-large, but hamfisted and populist. They have not been based on good economics, rationale, and analysis.

Deficit financing is almost guaranteed if we go into recession. It's actually good policy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

[/b]This is bad policy. When entering a recession governments should spend more not less. Fiscal austerity by governments in the early 1930s turned a recession into a depression.

In either case, it's not accurate to say that the Liberals will spend more. Infact, the amount of bald-faced lying committed by the Conservatives over the Green Shift is frankly disgraceful and sullying this election. They Liberals will spend no more than they earn through their new tax. Government receipts and expenditures will be very similar to current levels.

It's text book Canadian politics.

Both sides always build their campaigns on fearmongering and making the other sides look like bogeymen.

When the Liberals were trying to keep Harper out, they tried to play on people's fears that he was a social conservative and that he would take away their rights. When the Conservatives try to keep the Liberals out, it is all about how their spending will bring financial ruin to everything...


...in the end, both parties are going to do pretty much exactly the same thing - and neither will keep half their promises.

[MarchHare]

This is bad policy. When entering a recession governments should spend more not less. Fiscal austerity by governments in the early 1930s turned a recession into a depression.

What you're talking about is classic Keynesian economics which states that in times of recession/depression, the government can stimulate the economy by a combination of spending increases (make-work projects), tax cuts, and lower interest rates from the central bank. The theory is tried and tested, but it's only a short-term fix. Implementing such a program, like FDR did in the 1930s, will result in a greatly increased national debt.

I'm certainly no supporter of Harper, but his policy of tightening the pursestrings isn't necessarily bad. Ever since Chretien/Martin balanced the budget, Canadians no longer tolerate deficit spending. Yes, the government could spare Canadians some economic hardship by simultaneously lowering taxes and increasing government spending, but at what cost to our future?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

[/b]This is bad policy. When entering a recession governments should spend more not less. Fiscal austerity by governments in the early 1930s turned a recession into a depression.

In either case, it's not accurate to say that the Liberals will spend more. Infact, the amount of bald-faced lying committed by the Conservatives over the Green Shift is frankly disgraceful and sullying this election. They Liberals will spend no more than they earn through their new tax. Government receipts and expenditures will be very similar to current levels.

In all the economics classes that I have taken and in all my professional experience, NO ONE takes Keynesian theory seriously anymore. There is a host of literature out there that almost certainly proves the negative long-term effects on an economic landscape.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

[/b]They Liberals will spend no more than they earn through their new tax.

Bull Shiat.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I think the people of Alberta are far more homogenous than anywhere else in the country. I wager that on October 14th that no province will be as homogenous as Alberta. So I'll agree that Quebec is less.

Maybe so, but as was mentioned earlier in this thread, the Liberals themselves are as much to blame for this as anyone.

And yeah, I guess I did miss the first time that Quebec's views on crime were brought up. It does seem odd that it would cause such a drastic shift in support, however. Obviously a cultural thing, as I really can't see going easy on violent criminals, regardless of age, as the kind of plank that would sink a ship. Not when it is, frankly, a ridiculously minor aspect of a party platform.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yes, the government could spare Canadians some economic hardship by simultaneously lowering taxes and increasing government spending, but at what cost to our future?

Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of having to pay down a debt that was largely put in place before I was born. As well I don't want to leave a debt behind for my children to pay off, talk about being selfish! We easily preach to each other to "live within their means" in reference to the recent collapse of the American economy but shouldn't a government also have to "live within its means"? It's easy to gain support by promising outlandish spending but like you mentioned at what cost to our future?

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by peter12

In all the economics classes that I have taken and in all my professional experience, NO ONE takes Keynesian theory seriously anymore. There is a host of literature out there that almost certainly proves the negative long-term effects on an economic landscape.

That's odd I don't think you have very broad horizons as new-Kenysianism is pretty active right now. New keynesian theory states that monetary policy should be used to counter-act an exogenous fall in consumer confidence.

Keynsian theory discredited? Please. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Bull Shiat.

Thanks for your contribution.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Bull Shiat.

Fair enough -- if you don't trust the Liberals when they say they'll be fiscally responsible, that's completely your right as a voter.

Just don't criticize anyone for falling for "Liberal fear-mongering tactics" if they don't trust Harper when he says his party will not implement socially conservative policies.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by kevman

Maybe it's just me but I don't like the idea of having to pay down a debt that was largely put in place before I was born. As well I don't want to leave a debt behind for my children to pay off, talk about being selfish! We easily preach to each other to "live within their means" in reference to the recent collapse of the American economy but shouldn't a government also have to "live within its means"? It's easy to gain support by promising outlandish spending but like you mentioned at what cost to our future?

Deficit financing isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you finance programs through borrowing that will return higher output than the financing costs then you're better off.

Of course you don't want to borrow to the point that your credit is downgraded like what happened under the last Conservative government but the idea of running up a debt is a pretty standard business practice.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Fair enough -- if you don't trust the Liberals when they say they'll be fiscally responsible, that's completely your right as a voter.

Just don't criticize anyone for falling for "Liberal fear-mongering tactics" if they don't trust Harper when he says his party will not implement socially conservative policies.

The difference is that the Liberals have a proven track record of waste.

Still waiting on the evil "Reform Alliance" Conservatives to show up.

The mysterious "Hidden Agenda" vs. legitimate history.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

That's odd I don't think you have very broad horizons as new-Kenysianism is pretty active right now. New keynesian theory states that monetary policy should be used to counter-act an exogenous fall in consumer confidence.

Keynsian theory discredited? Please. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In American and Canadian theoretical circles, I am totally bang-on. I can't account for what stupid governments do with politically motivated leaders who can't think ahead of the next election cycle.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

The difference is that the Liberals have a proven track record of waste.

Still waiting on the evil "Reform Alliance" Conservatives to show up.

The mysterious "Hidden Agenda" vs. legitimate history.

One of Harper's first acts as PM was an attempt to repeal the Gay Marriage legislation -- it was defeated by the other three parties. If the Conservatives had a majority, they very easily could have passed that or any other socially-conservative agenda (hidden or otherwise) that they wanted.

Harper has also said numerous times that he wants his backbenchers to have more power and for parliament to have a greater number of free-votes. While Harper himself may or may not support the introduction of socially conservative legislation, many of his MPs certainly do, and a Conservative majority could give them enough votes to pass any number of socially conservative private members' bills.

As for the Liberals' record, under Chretien and Martin they did indeed have a proven record of fiscal responsibility and budget-balancing. Was there also wasteful spending? Absolutely there was, but no government, left or right wing, is immune from that.