Fiest NDP budget in Canadian history..

[transplant99]

Yup...the NDP who garnered less than 18% of the national vote in the last election are the ones who have decided how the fiscal goings on of the country shall be done...according to thier very own.

NDP Leader Jack Layton was "thrilled" his party had a hand in influencing the direction of the budget.

"It's the first NDP budget bill ever to be adopted by the House of Commons in the history of our party. Canadians will now get some results they've been waiting for a long time."

Actually Jack... "Canadians" never wanted any part of your country-destroying ways, even when a real leader like Ed Broadbent was in charge. What a friggin arrogant thing to say.

So there you have it folks......the minority is truly pulling the strings on your puppet PM.

Yeah.....good thing the non-confidence vote was lost by the opposition allright.


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/N...048351-sun.html

[Flame Of Liberty]

It doesn’t matter that it’s a minority who decides how the fiscal goings on of the country shall be done. What matters is if it gets done right or wrong. And what’s right and what’s wrong does not depend on democratic vote.

[lucid]

'Tis part of the game of the minority government.
I strangely feel like my vote was not a complete and utter waste. How very rare.
Though I wish it were under better circumstances, rather than this mess that we're forced to deal with.

[Claeren]

It is tricky though. The NDP (along with the Bloc and Greens) has gained just as much as the Conservatives through all of this, i am not sure there is much evidence to show that if everyone abandoned the Liberal party that the Conservatives would win the next election.

People want an alternative, but cerainly not a socially right wing one. Not even downtown Calgary could be won by a Reform/Alliance member pre-merger. (And likewise in DT Edmonton) Is it any surprise that post merger no eastern urban areas in Canada are interested?

The major divide in Canada is not East-West or French-English. It is overwhelmingly Urban-Rural and frankly Urban ridings look at the Conservative party as a joke. It is simply incompatible with modern urban life.

IF they ever get their social policy out of the farm bible's of the tranditionalist/rural value voters of western Canada and instead focus on fiscal responsibilty they might have a chance.

I don't see it happening though...

That is not to say that conservatives are wrong in their values, merely that it should be no surprise the urban populace of the east is not interested - not because they are from the east, but because they are overwhelmingly urban value oriented....

Right or wrong, your average urban Canadian voter is more likely to equate responsible government and personal freedom as easy access to Day Care and Health Care then they are the right to an unregistered firearm in their hand and preventing the marriage of the common-law gay people living in the apartment 2 floors up.

Claeren.

[Lurch]

Again, why be angry with Layton or Martin? Who created the need for Martin to accept the NDP's amendment - perhaps a guy named Harper. Harper made a huge blunder, lost his gamble, and just managed to fail his constituents miserably. It's a good thing Harper doesn't actually mean all that stuff he says about free votes in the Commons, b/c he sure has illustrated he doesn't have a clue about how to accomplish something when its not a top down world.

If I were to evaluate the leaders, I'd say Layton was brilliant in this mess. He got something for his constituents AND was seen to make government function which is apparently what Canadians want (sheep according to the conservatives around here). Duceppe did as expected - neither good nor bad. Martin was mediocre - he probably managed to make the CPC's look bad getting Stronach and passing the bill but has not come off as a particulary strong leader. Harper gets a huge fail, IMO. He "accomplished": lost a member, saw Cadman vote Liberal which is not where the guys heart is, visibly aligned with the Bloc AND forced the government into adopting NDP legislation. For an economist, he sure shows a miserable understanding of game theory.

[Looger]

yep, minority government, israel-style.

which incidentally is why there can never be peace there, minority governments talk peace but allow the ultra-right to build illegal settlements because their votes are needed.

not that canada even ticks at all with a majority, but good god, NDP fiscal policy is a guarantee that services will go down, but slow.

year after year our credit rating gets worse as debts aren't paid. more money to interest, less money to services.

why don't canadians get this?

it's really, really simple.

perhaps someone should campaign with the idea of a house mortgage.

disposable income is what's left after mortgage and bills. that's spent on foos, cars, vacations, etc.

start paying $50 per month extra. then $100. then $150. or whatever, figure out the average canadian's debt load, and get a proportional figure increase that the average joe can understand - a real-world example of why you cannot spend yourself out of trouble.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Claeren@May 20 2005, 06:33 AM
Right or wrong, your average urban Canadian voter is more likely to equate responsible government and personal freedom as easy access to Day Care and Health Care then they are the right to an unregistered firearm in their hand and preventing the marriage of the common-law gay people living in the apartment 2 floors up.

Good comments. While there are definitely these types of differences between urban and rural, I think there are also some commonalities. I think in general, Canadians are more moderate in their views. Pro trade, balance between individual rights and responsibilities, willing to help others, placing an importance on infrastructure - transportation and communication - tolerance and fairness.

I think Canadians are driven more by the pocketbook than the prayerbook.

[Claeren]

^ Which is why the liberals have been so successful.

Never preach morals and keep the books balanced.

[Claeren]

Originally posted by Looger@May 20 2005, 07:42 AM
yep, minority government, israel-style.

which incidentally is why there can never be peace there, minority governments talk peace but allow the ultra-right to build illegal settlements because their votes are needed.

not that canada even ticks at all with a majority, but good god, NDP fiscal policy is a guarantee that services will go down, but slow.

year after year our credit rating gets worse as debts aren't paid. more money to interest, less money to services.

why don't canadians get this?

it's really, really simple.

perhaps someone should campaign with the idea of a house mortgage.

disposable income is what's left after mortgage and bills. that's spent on foos, cars, vacations, etc.

start paying $50 per month extra. then $100. then $150. or whatever, figure out the average canadian's debt load, and get a proportional figure increase that the average joe can understand - a real-world example of why you cannot spend yourself out of trouble.

I am NOT refuting that ultra-left policy is fiscally irresponsible (It is) but your reasoning, that Canadians are in a bad financial position, is not in line with the facts.

Despite a healthy dose of social spending Canada has one of the most enviable financial positions in the G8. The only nation with balanced books, annual surpluses, strong job growth, etc.


Claeren.

[Looger]

Originally posted by Claeren@May 20 2005, 03:01 PM
I am NOT refuting that ultra-left policy is fiscally irresponsible (It is) but your reasoning, that Canadians are in a bad financial position, is not in line with the facts.

Despite a healthy dose of social spending Canada has one of the most enviable financial positions in the G8. The only nation with balanced books, annual surpluses, strong job growth, etc.


Claeren.

what i meant was that canadians should be shown a real-world example with dollar figures that they can grasp easier, why it is important to be fiscally responsible.

i know canada isn't so bad off RIGHT now but in the recent past it wasn't too well off and it could easily be bad if our credit rating slips.

[Resolute 14]

I dont think Looger was arguing that Canada is in a bad financial situation now, but that it would be under an NDP government.

The NDP preaches to the lazy nature of mankind. Why should you work hard to better your situation when the government can give you everything it claims you need? The only price is that you have to give up all your money. But that's okay, because the government gives you everything you need! And since you get it anyway, why should you work hard?

An oversimplification, but the NDP has a very, very arrogant belief that it knows better than we do what we want and need, and it has no problem spending our money on it. This is clearly displayed by Jack Layton, who has repeatedly had the gall to stand up and call his pet-projects "what Canadians want", even though Canadians have resoundingly rejected what he and his party stands for.

[MarchHare]

Layton needs to read some more on Canadian history if he thinks this is the first "NDP budget". His party was in exactly the same position during the minority governments of Lester Pearson in the 1960s. They managed to use their leverage to negotiate the creation of socialized medicine and the CPP into the buget.

[Pileon]

Originally posted by Lurch@May 20 2005, 07:33 AM
Again, why be angry with Layton or Martin? Who created the need for Martin to accept the NDP's amendment - perhaps a guy named Harper. Harper made a huge blunder, lost his gamble, and just managed to fail his constituents miserably. It's a good thing Harper doesn't actually mean all that stuff he says about free votes in the Commons, b/c he sure has illustrated he doesn't have a clue about how to accomplish something when its not a top down world.

If I were to evaluate the leaders, I'd say Layton was brilliant in this mess. He got something for his constituents AND was seen to make government function which is apparently what Canadians want (sheep according to the conservatives around here). Duceppe did as expected - neither good nor bad. Martin was mediocre - he probably managed to make the CPC's look bad getting Stronach and passing the bill but has not come off as a particulary strong leader. Harper gets a huge fail, IMO. He "accomplished": lost a member, saw Cadman vote Liberal which is not where the guys heart is, visibly aligned with the Bloc AND forced the government into adopting NDP legislation. For an economist, he sure shows a miserable understanding of game theory.

While Layton may have been the big winner, stamping his "brand" on the budget will end up costing him and the NDP. Fiscal conservatives in all parties will remember this come next election.

It was Harper's fault??? Why not blame Chretien's mother - she gave birth. It is Harper's job as leader of the opposition to hold the Liberals responsible for their actions. Evidently the Liberals view of how to do that is to hold an inquiry that will cost the taxpayers more than the original scandal.

The Cadman thing is very sad. To think that people look at the issue as one of convenience - I don't want an election to interfere with my summer plans - is an indictment of how jaded people are of the whole political process.

Harper does have one shortcoming. He's a bit of an egghead - he tries to operate on "book learned" principles that don't seem to work in the real world. Why not make a deal with the opposition, no matter how much you may disagree, it it will get you a small spike in the opinion polls. He needs to learn to play politics like the Liberal machine does.

[MarchHare]

This version of the budget is entirely Harper's fault.

Remember that the Liberals initially drafted a budget that was far more favourable to the Conservatives than the NDP or Bloc. Harper said at the time that his party would not oppose the budget to bring down the government, and that he was pleased with many aspects of it.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...tion050223.html

It was only after some of the more shocking testimony at the Gomery Inquiry, when Harper saw that the Liberals were hurting in the polls, that he decided it was politically advantageous for him to force an election.

Layton only stepped in with his offer to support the government in exchange for his proposed amendments to the budget after Harper flip-flopped and said the Conservatives were now going to oppose it. Bill C-48 would never have existed were it not for Harper changing his mind and deciding to vote against C-43.

So if Harper isn't happy that C-48 passed, he only has himself to blame. His failed attempt at political opportunism is what led to the Liberal-NDP coalition.

[Lurch]

Layton only stepped in with his offer to support the government in exchange for his proposed amendments to the budget after Harper flip-flopped and said the Conservatives were now going to oppose it. Bill C-48 would never have existed were it not for Harper changing his mind and deciding to vote against C-43.

So if Harper isn't happy that C-48 passed, he only has himself to blame. His failed attempt at political opportunism is what led to the Liberal-NDP coalition.

This is the point I was trying to make - hopefully it came across. What did Harper expect to happen when he announced he would oppose the budget - that Martin would say "ok, I guess it's time for me to announce the election". Harper aligned with the Bloc, forcing the Liberals to either side with the NDP or call an election. Only an idiot could fail to see which way Martin would go, ergo thank Harper for this budget. He could easily have said "I'm willing to wait on Gomery if you include these amendments to the budget" and given Martin a second option (better yet if he did it before Layton put his offer on the table). If he goes down this road, he looks more moderate working with the Liberals, doesn't provide election fodder working with the Bloc, and goes a long way toward establishing a moderate image with voters. Big fail on all counts with what he actually did.

[octothorp]

This is a party that has always been between 12% and 25% of the federal vote. That means that on average, roughly one in five Canadians voters chooses the NDP, and yet the Conservatives complain that the NDP have an unfair amount of power when they control the budget for the first time in the last forty years? The rest of those years, the budget is controlled by parties that have had, on average, maybe one in three votes. Seems to me that politics in a democracy even out over time, and so it makes sense that every so often, a budget is put forth that reflects the opinions of that 20% of Canadian voters. It would be a travesty if the NDP controlled the budget every year with only 20% of the vote. But they don't--this is the result of unlikely parlimentary conditions and of an extreme miscalculation by the Conservatives.

[FlamesAddiction]

Layton was joking around for the most part, although the NDP did influence it.

I think it's great to finally give someone else a chance. If it does well, the NDP might succeed in stealing more liberal voters, so you conservatives should be hoping the budget is a successful one.