More Conservative "Honesty" on Display

[ernie]

You also can't help but notice the Liberals have absolutely no one vouching for their numbers at all. In recent history the Liberal numbers have been so completely different from reality.

While the independent validator of the Tory numbers said he wasn't given some things he also said they would be impossible numbers to verify at this time and the bulk of the promises are included and validated. The end result there is plenty of money the liberals have used in spedning sprees the last 3 budgets to deal with everything. Given the way the liberals have thrown moeny around the last 3 budgets it really is the pot calling the kettle black.

[Shawnski]

I bet he would give Coach Mumbles a run for his money on that one, Transplant!!

[ernie]

From the conservative website referring to the Darby comments:

OTTAWA – Today Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the Conference Board of Canada, confirmed to us that his original analysis of the Conservative Party of Canada’s election plan released January 13, 2006, remains unchanged.

“In summary, we found that the Conservative Party’s economic platform is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. In each year there is enough fiscal room to pay down at least $3 billion a year in debt, as in the [Conservative] fiscal plan.
“Over the five-year forecast horizon to 2010-11, the CBoC economic and fiscal outlook suggests that there remains $15.7 billion in unallocated fiscal room, over and above the $3 billion annual debt payment, which provides further cushion to ensure that deficits do not occur due to adverse economic events.”

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has always made it clear that the details of the fiscal imbalance will be negotiated with the provinces and that surplus revenues exist in the Conservative plan to deal with this issue.
Mr. Harper has said on numerous occasions that the Patient Health Care Guarantee will be paid for from existing budgetary resources.

[Shawnski]

From CTV on this...

But on Monday, Harper maintained his party has full support of the Conference Board, a prominent think tank.

"That report is not correct," said Harper, taking questions from reporters in Saint John, N.B., where he was attending a rally. "We've spoken to the Conference Board. They stand by their report."

Indeed, Darby seemed to back off from his comment later Sunday night, when he released a statement through the Conservative campaign reaffirming his December evaluation that the platform was fiscally sound.

"In summary, we found that the Conservative Party's economic platform is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011," said Darby in his latest statement, adding that there's enough fiscal room annually to pay down at least $3 billion in debt each year.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2006

Nice thread...

[Winsor_Pilates]

It's amazing how many of the posts in this thread have nothing to do with the topic. The point is what Darby said/says (good or bad) about the Conservative plan. Darby is not a Liberal. Why do so many posters respond by saying things about the Liberals or "Who are the Liberals to criticise anyone?"

Talk about spin masters. Can't the Conservative plan be defended on its own, without comparison to Libs?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Talk about spin masters. Can't the Conservative plan be defended on its own, without comparison to Libs?

Answer:

OTTAWA – Today Paul Darby, Deputy Chief Economist of the Conference Board of Canada, confirmed to us that his original analysis of the Conservative Party of Canada’s election plan released January 13, 2006, remains unchanged.

“In summary, we found that the Conservative Party’s economic platform is affordable in each fiscal year from 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. In each year there is enough fiscal room to pay down at least $3 billion a year in debt, as in the [Conservative] fiscal plan.
“Over the five-year forecast horizon to 2010-11, the CBoC economic and fiscal outlook suggests that there remains $15.7 billion in unallocated fiscal room, over and above the $3 billion annual debt payment, which provides further cushion to ensure that deficits do not occur due to adverse economic events.”

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has always made it clear that the details of the fiscal imbalance will be negotiated with the provinces and that surplus revenues exist in the Conservative plan to deal with this issue.
Mr. Harper has said on numerous occasions that the Patient Health Care Guarantee will be paid for from existing budgetary resources.

The Merry-go round has stopped!

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

Watching Martin talk in Vancouver. He got on this issue and pronounced that in order for Harper to "address the fiscal imbalance" it would take $10 billion, maybe $20 billion dollars.

Funny, only just before Xmas, No Fiscal Imbalance, Martin tells Klein

Guess Dithers strikes again, eh?

Martin's shift from "Prime Minister of Canada" to "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" would be quite striking if Martin didn't already have a massive history of flip-flopping.

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Martin's shift from "Prime Minister of Canada" to "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" would be quite striking if Martin didn't already have a massive history of flip-flopping.

But it would actually be "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Flopposition"!!!

[Winsor_Pilates]

Canada 02: That's why I said MANY of the posts. That bit there is what should be posted and props to who ever did in the first place. My observation was aimed at a number of posts above that one that resorted to spinning this into a Liberal issue and fear mongering about the spending habits of Liberals in order to destract attention from the matter at hand.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Canada 02: That's why I said MANY of the posts. That bit there is what should be posted and props to who ever did in the first place. My observation was aimed at a number of posts above that one that resorted to spinning this into a Liberal issue and fear mongering about the spending habits of Liberals in order to destract attention from the matter at hand.

Its policy, platform and ideology if you agree with it, and 'spin' if you disagree. I have no problem with Liberal 'spin' or Conservative 'spin' etc Lets get all the information out there, debate the issues and formulate an opinion for yourself. If you are a conservative, you might consider the first post that started this thread as Liberal 'spin' - my first post in this thread was a quote from the same article as in the 1st post with Monte Solbergs clear explanation IMO of the situation, but that wasn't mentioned in the first post. Liberal spin or Liberal opinion?

[PYroMaNiaC]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Canada 02: That's why I said MANY of the posts. That bit there is what should be posted and props to who ever did in the first place. My observation was aimed at a number of posts above that one that resorted to spinning this into a Liberal issue and fear mongering about the spending habits of Liberals in order to destract attention from the matter at hand.

If you are referring to my post, WP, in the second paragraph of Mike's opener, it said

The Liberals came out attacking the Conservative platform as fiscally irresponsible

That was where my anger was directed. As if the Liberals have ever been responsible fiscally.
The matter at hand becomes irrelevant if the sources are liars and thieves.

[transplant99]

The matter at hand becomes irrelevant if the sources are liars and thieves.

Agreed.

it's like a murderer calling a car thief out for being a criminal.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Its policy, platform and ideology if you agree with it, and 'spin' if you disagree. I have no problem with Liberal 'spin' or Conservative 'spin' etc Lets get all the information out there, debate the issues and formulate an opinion for yourself. If you are a conservative, you might consider the first post that started this thread as Liberal 'spin' - my first post in this thread was a quote from the same article as in the 1st post with Monte Solbergs clear explanation IMO of the situation, but that wasn't mentioned in the first post. Liberal spin or Liberal opinion?

I agree with most of this.
I just think spinning goes both ways. I think a lot of CPC supportors on this forum like to call out the Libs for doing it, but then go and do the same thing themselves. The reality is, hate it or love it, spinning is a major part of politics and all sides do it.

Originally Posted by PYroMaNiaC

That was where my anger was directed. As if the Liberals have ever been responsible fiscally.
The matter at hand becomes irrelevant if the sources are liars and thieves.

I understand that, but the source is not a liar and thieve (as far as I know). The source was Paul Darby. Isn't his info/opinion relevent?

[Mike F]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

From CTV on this...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2006

Nice thread...

Man, talk about cutting off a quote when it suits you!

From that same article, just below where you stopped:

"Darby, however, declined to say how the omission of the two pledges would affect the party's ability to run balanced budgets."

So the economist still will only sign off on the Conservative budget that they submitted to him, which doesn't include these two platform promises.

And before you start arguing that the cost is accounted for, even the Tory finance critic admits the fiscal imbalance cost isn't accounted for:

"It's not clear what the Conservatives expect to pay to redress the fiscal imbalance -- something the federal Liberals have argued doesn't really exist. Tory finance critic Monte Solberg stressed that the costs cannot be included in the platform because they're still subject to discussions with the provinces, should the Tories win power."

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Man, talk about cutting off a quote when it suits you!

From that same article, just below where you stopped:

"Darby, however, declined to say how the omission of the two pledges would affect the party's ability to run balanced budgets."

So the economist still will only sign off on the Conservative budget that they submitted to him, which doesn't include these two platform promises.

And before you start arguing that the cost is accounted for, even the Tory finance critic admits the fiscal imbalance cost isn't accounted for:

"It's not clear what the Conservatives expect to pay to redress the fiscal imbalance -- something the federal Liberals have argued doesn't really exist. Tory finance critic Monte Solberg stressed that the costs cannot be included in the platform because they're still subject to discussions with the provinces, should the Tories win power."

Actually, I WAS going to include that first quote, to PROVE that the whole point is a non-issue. Nothing has been negotiated yet, and as you could probably guess, this will take some time to accomplish, especially while the other points in the platform get introduced. I highly expect it will be implemented at the end of the term, thus.... no cost in this platform.

Nice try.