Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Soon enough these young people will get their first experience witnessing the fine fiscal management of Conservatives, and their caring demeanor. As they say, Conservative times are tough times.

Not sure how this statement can be taken seriously. The Liberals have had power for 75% of the last 30 years and there has been exactly one Conservative Prime Minister in that time, and under him the economy was relatively stable and saw the dollar at par with the US dollar for much of it. Canada was probably one of the countries least affected by the global financial crisis, and growth was modest, but stable.

Of course there were other issues with Harper's reign, but if we're focusing on the economy only, I'm not sure how you can say the statement above with a straight face.

I would think it's pretty easy to rank the regimes of the last 30 years as Chretien > Harper > Martin > Trudeau. Unfortunately for Canadians, I think PP will be much much closer to Trudeau than Chretien, but just trying to highlight that that hasn't necessarily been the case when you look at Canada's recent history.

[Izzle]

Which party is better equipped to handle Trump and his 'jokes' that Canada would be great as the 51st state?

With this shift of the Overton window, there is going to be a percentage of the population that would welcome it. Which party leadership can tell their constituents that Trump joking like this is objectively bad?

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Which party is better equipped to handle Trump and his 'jokes' that Canada would be great as the 51st state?

With this shift of the Overton window, there is going to be a percentage of the population that would welcome it. Which party leadership can tell their constituents that Trump joking like this is objectively bad?

Neither. The Conservatives will bow down and give Trump what he wants and destroy Canada’s negotiating position, which is small, but does exist. The Liberals will try and stick it to Trump in their arrogance thinking Canada has much more leverage than they do, and it’ll hurt Canada more than it helps.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Goriders

You’re as delusional as trudeau if you believe that.

The liberals are headed for a 1993 mulroney loss.

Trudeau is too much of a narcissist to step aside. He’s going down with the ship and taking the country with him. It’s not him. Everyone else is wrong.

Someone already used that line, it was as stupid from them as it is from you. If you’re going to ignore the fact that it’s predicated on Trudeau exiting now, then you should at least avoid ignoring the numbers YOU posted in favour of your delusional 1993 theory:

Originally Posted by Goriders

Numbers from 388canada are similar.

CPC 43% 226 seats
Liberals 22% 47 seats
NDP 19% 23 seats
Bloc 8% 45 seats
Green 4% 2 seats

Time to take the Liberal/NDP frankenhorse out to pasture and put a bullet in its head. How much more of this gong show does the country have to watch.

The Liberals, right now and with Trudeau, are in official opposition territory. I know your fantasies of them losing party status are keeping you going, but with a new leader and an election a year away, a lot can happen to improve on that position, and it’s going to be pretty difficult to see them drop below the Green party.

Trudeau is unpopular, but so is PP and Singh. That’s where the Liberal opportunity exists. Boot Trudeau and put in someone who commands the room and brings big promises of righting the ship, and it’s going to suck for NDP and Conservative supporters. Doesn’t mean the Liberals win, but it certainly changes the landscape in terms of majority/minority and party order/oppositional status. You’d be ignorant to think otherwise.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Not sure how this statement can be taken seriously. The Liberals have had power for 75% of the last 30 years and there has been exactly one Conservative Prime Minister in that time, and under him the economy was relatively stable and saw the dollar at par with the US dollar for much of it. Canada was probably one of the countries least affected by the global financial crisis, and growth was modest, but stable.

Of course there were other issues with Harper's reign, but if we're focusing on the economy only, I'm not sure how you can say the statement above with a straight face.

I would think it's pretty easy to rank the regimes of the last 30 years as Chretien > Harper > Martin > Trudeau. Unfortunately for Canadians, I think PP will be much much closer to Trudeau than Chretien, but just trying to highlight that that hasn't necessarily been the case when you look at Canada's recent history.

Harper doesn't get credit for Canada surviving the financial crisis, it's well known fact that for years he pushed for deregulation, and had the system followed his vision, we'd have been as ####ed as the US. In 2007, they extended mortgage periods to 40 years! Yes, they eventually cut this back, after 2008 made it evident this was a truly stupid move.

Cutting per vote subsidies that he didn't campaign on was, in my opinion, bad for democracy in Canada.

Cutting the GST was a typical Conservative move that allowed him to starve the budget so he could claim poverty and cut services to Canadians and tear don our institutions around environmental protections, consolidating Environment Canada to Winnipeg(gee, why are Calgary's forecasts not matching what I see out the window, I wonder?) selling off the Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia, selling off AECL for $15 million(gee, we could maybe use a national nuclear agency now?), tanking the Kelowna Accords(which perhaps could have avoided these massive payouts this year if we had made that deal) and so many other short sighted moves that we pay for later, and will absolutely be repeated by Pierre.

He also continue the rust out of the military, with spending around 1% of GDP. So now we have to pay to cover that one, too. He was so fixated on a balanced budget for each year he couldn't see the damage he was doing long term. His legacy isn't one that was leading Canada to any kind of long term prosperity(and no, that doesn't mean I think Trudeau is doing better in that regard).

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Harper doesn't get credit for Canada surviving the financial crisis, it's well known fact that for years he pushed for deregulation, and had the system followed his vision, we'd have been as ####ed as the US. In 2007, they extended mortgage periods to 40 years! Yes, they eventually cut this back, after 2008 made it evident this was a truly stupid move.

Cutting per vote subsidies that he didn't campaign on was, in my opinion, bad for democracy in Canada.

Cutting the GST was a typical Conservative move that allowed him to starve the budget so he could claim poverty and cut services to Canadians and tear don our institutions around environmental protections, consolidating Environment Canada to Winnipeg(gee, why are Calgary's forecasts not matching what I see out the window, I wonder?) selling off the Wheat Board to Saudi Arabia, selling off AECL for $15 million(gee, we could maybe use a national nuclear agency now?), tanking the Kelowna Accords(which perhaps could have avoided these massive payouts this year if we had made that deal) and so many other short sighted moves that we pay for later, and will absolutely be repeated by Pierre.

He also continue the rust out of the military, with spending around 1% of GDP. So now we have to pay to cover that one, too. He was so fixated on a balanced budget for each year he couldn't see the damage he was doing long term. His legacy isn't one that was leading Canada to any kind of long term prosperity(and no, that doesn't mean I think Trudeau is doing better in that regard).

I mean, you can arm wave on what you didn’t like about his policies, but at the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. The economy was stable, performing well, and the dollar was strong, and we weathered the worst financial crisis in the past few decades and came out stronger. Not at all saying things were perfect by any means, but economically, things were stable and looking solid.

I’m happy to look at any data you have on how these policies negatively affected the economy, if you have it.

[Erick Estrada]

Harper was a much better PM than Trudeau (not exactly a high bar) but I don't think that means PP is going to be nearly as good a PM as Harper was. In fact I would bet against it. That said he's going to have to be pretty awful to be worse than Trudeau. Time will tell.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I mean, you can arm wave on what you didn’t like about his policies, but at the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. The economy was stable, performing well, and the dollar was strong, and we weathered the worst financial crisis in the past few decades and came out stronger. Not at all saying things were perfect by any means, but economically, things were stable and looking solid.

I’m happy to look at any data you have on how these policies negatively affected the economy, if you have it.

You are looking at outcomes, which we know are far more influenced by global events and the global economy than domestic policy. When you look at the things he actually did(as I laid out) you can see how they weren't great policy and left costs for us today.

And again, you give Harper credit for surviving the economic crisis, and I just don't see how you can do that when the policies he wanted for years, pushed for, and got some passed, would have left us far worse off. Just because Harper was captain of the ship he was riding on at the time, doesn't mean he wasn't also actively trying to punch holes in it. Fortunately it turned out to be a fairly well built ship for that purpose. Canada survived it in spite of Harper, not because of him.

What good economic policies did Harper have that did what you say they did for Canada?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Soon enough these young people will get their first experience witnessing the fine fiscal management of Conservatives, and their caring demeanor. As they say, Conservative times are tough times.

Better than going bankrupt

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Slava

This was a shrewd political move by Freeland. She steps aside, and throws the budget mess all into Trudeaus lap. She sticking around as an MP and when he leaves, she’ll run for leadership and can in this budget issue on him. Had she stayed and been fired, that option is out the window. She knew exactly what she as doing here and despite CPC thoughts otherwise, she’s a really smart person.

I’m not saying she wins that leadership, but she’s certainly given herself a better chance by quitting now and in the way that she did.

You could be right. But this is the main issue. We need real leadership and not just shrewd political moves. We’ve had that for the last decade and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You are looking at outcomes, which we know are far more influenced by global events and the global economy than domestic policy. When you look at the things he actually did(as I laid out) you can see how they weren't great policy and left costs for us today.

And again, you give Harper credit for surviving the economic crisis, and I just don't see how you can do that when the policies he wanted for years, pushed for, and got some passed, would have left us far worse off. Just because Harper was captain of the ship he was riding on at the time, doesn't mean he wasn't also actively trying to punch holes in it. Fortunately it turned out to be a fairly well built ship for that purpose. Canada survived it in spite of Harper, not because of him.

What good economic policies did Harper have that did what you say they did for Canada?

Few points here. To address your last question first, there are multiple economic policies that I think did good things for Canada:

- I am in favour of reducing regulations (within reason). It's clear to me that Canada has become a country that is uncompetitive and the red tape and bureaucracy we have in place is a huge part of that. It has become worse and worse over Trudeau's reign, and I think it's the single largest reason there is no investment thesis for Canada anymore
- I think the income and corporate tax cuts under Harper helped fuel Canada to be at least slightly more competitive and spurn some investment in the country
- I also think that his focus on balanced budgets and reduced government spending are things that I believe strongly help the country

This last bullet segways nicely into my next point - something that I've heard countless times on this board is people downplay the successes of the economy under Harper ("Canada survived it in spite of Harper, not because of him"), and also downplay the failures of the economy and the trends we've seen under Trudeau. So what I've heard is that the Prime Minister has very little effect on the economy and that you can in no way put the blame on Trudeau because the macro environment is what actually effects the economy.

Let's accept the premise that that's the case, the Prime Minister has very minimal effect on the economy, and we can put no praise or blame on them for how the economy performs. If that's true, then how can you possibly continue to support the level of spending, the level of government bloat, taxation, and the waste that happens in the government? If the government has little effect on what happens, why do we need 40% more government workers over the last 10 years? Why do we need deficits that blow through anything we've seen in Canada's history, if government spending has little effect on the performance of the economy?

Have you gotten the impression that any social services have improved since we've increased all of the above? I haven't gotten that impression. It all boils down to the fact that Canadians ARE NOT getting what they are paying for. At least under Harper that came with a balanced budget and reduced taxes putting money back into Canadian pockets, which has not been the case recently.

In any case, my argument was with your statement that "Conservative times are tough times". I think even you'd agree that that statement doesn't hold true when you look at Harper's time in power, even if you think that happened in spite of him and not because of him, because by your own admission, the Prime Minister is at the behest of the macro environment, so he can't do that much damage.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I mean, you can arm wave on what you didn’t like about his policies, but at the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. The economy was stable, performing well, and the dollar was strong, and we weathered the worst financial crisis in the past few decades and came out stronger. Not at all saying things were perfect by any means, but economically, things were stable and looking solid.

I’m happy to look at any data you have on how these policies negatively affected the economy, if you have it.

Yes Canada performed very well relatively during this period.

Its one of the reasons Mark Carney is so respected in the financial world. He deservedly gets most of the credit as it was more the monetary policy than the fiscal policy that helped Canada succeed. I can't believe he is ruining his political future in this country by hitching to the JT mess.

I think minority Harper was a perfectly decent PM. Nothing special, but nothing terrible, he kept his government alive by ensuring he governed to the centre. Majority Harper was a policy trainwreck.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

I mean, you can arm wave on what you didn’t like about his policies, but at the end of the day, the numbers are the numbers. The economy was stable, performing well, and the dollar was strong, and we weathered the worst financial crisis in the past few decades and came out stronger. Not at all saying things were perfect by any means, but economically, things were stable and looking solid.

I’m happy to look at any data you have on how these policies negatively affected the economy, if you have it.

It's not comparative to later PMs, but here's a good review of Harper's leadership.


https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magaz...-harper-years/

Summary and conclusion


Relative to the 1984-2005 period, Canadian economic performance during the Harper government years worsened on most aggregate measures of growth and jobs, despite the fact that it was much better than American performance in 2007-11. On the other hand, relative to the earlier period, the growth rate of real disposable income per capita in Canada during the Harper years was much faster. Income growth per capita was also double the rate in the United States over 2006-15.


Canadian macroeconomic performance during the Harper government years was driven largely by global economic developments; federal economic policy initiatives played a relatively minor role in shaping Canadian performance, except during 2008-10. A severe US recession and sluggish US recovery along with a sizable loss of Canadian cost competitiveness depressed Canadian growth. The drag was offset only partly by the positive effects of stronger prices for commodities and lower global and domestic interest rates. The resilience of the Canadian banking system and the relative buoyancy of the Canadian housing market, which owed little to Harper government policies, helped to preserve financial stability and buttress economic growth, in contrast to what happened in many other advanced economies.


Contributing effectively to stabilization with discretionary fiscal policy is a difficult task. The federal government ran an overly expansionary discretionary policy in 2006 and 2007, a fortuitously but appropriately expansionary policy in 2008 and an appropriately very expansionary policy in 2009-10. Because it was too focused on reducing deficit over 2011-15, its policy contributed to an unnecessarily slow, rather muted recovery in Canada.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Izzle

Which party is better equipped to handle Trump and his 'jokes' that Canada would be great as the 51st state?

With this shift of the Overton window, there is going to be a percentage of the population that would welcome it. Which party leadership can tell their constituents that Trump joking like this is objectively bad?

Sadly, it's only been Doug Ford thus far

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by ThePrince

Few points here. To address your last question first, there are multiple economic policies that I think did good things for Canada:

- I am in favour of reducing regulations (within reason). It's clear to me that Canada has become a country that is uncompetitive and the red tape and bureaucracy we have in place is a huge part of that. It has become worse and worse over Trudeau's reign, and I think it's the single largest reason there is no investment thesis for Canada anymore
- I think the income and corporate tax cuts under Harper helped fuel Canada to be at least slightly more competitive and spurn some investment in the country
- I also think that his focus on balanced budgets and reduced government spending are things that I believe strongly help the country

This last bullet segways nicely into my next point - something that I've heard countless times on this board is people downplay the successes of the economy under Harper ("Canada survived it in spite of Harper, not because of him"), and also downplay the failures of the economy and the trends we've seen under Trudeau. So what I've heard is that the Prime Minister has very little effect on the economy and that you can in no way put the blame on Trudeau because the macro environment is what actually effects the economy.

Let's accept the premise that that's the case, the Prime Minister has very minimal effect on the economy, and we can put no praise or blame on them for how the economy performs. If that's true, then how can you possibly continue to support the level of spending, the level of government bloat, taxation, and the waste that happens in the government? If the government has little effect on what happens, why do we need 40% more government workers over the last 10 years? Why do we need deficits that blow through anything we've seen in Canada's history, if government spending has little effect on the performance of the economy?

Have you gotten the impression that any social services have improved since we've increased all of the above? I haven't gotten that impression. It all boils down to the fact that Canadians ARE NOT getting what they are paying for. At least under Harper that came with a balanced budget and reduced taxes putting money back into Canadian pockets, which has not been the case recently.

In any case, my argument was with your statement that "Conservative times are tough times". I think even you'd agree that that statement doesn't hold true when you look at Harper's time in power, even if you think that happened in spite of him and not because of him, because by your own admission, the Prime Minister is at the behest of the macro environment, so he can't do that much damage.

There are absolutely things PM's can do to direct the economy, but when you look out outcomes(economic indicators), I think Canada's economy is largely dependent on global winds. We can catch them with strategically placed windmills, or we can get blown over by them if we put up walls.


And to be clear, I'm not defending Trudeau here. I think he's made some pretty big fiscal blunders.



As to your second point, I'd have to say yes. I get more money back in Carbon taxes than I pay, so that's been a help. We now have an expanding national dental program, which I'm pretty sure will be helpful to me in the near future. Pharmacare is huge, and the only hit on it is the small initial scope. And you can't discount the benefit of having a party that doesn't cater to Christofacists as a benefit to the social health of the country. Working with our indigenous to try to right past wrongs is also good for the country. Can I expect any of this under Pierre? Gonna lean hard no on that.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Goriders

You could be right. But this is the main issue. We need real leadership and not just shrewd political moves. We’ve had that for the last decade and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere.

Unfortunately though, "real leadership" just isn't in the cards for the foreseeable future. So, we're stuck looking at a regime that's run it's course and now we end up with the other guys until all their grifting and scamming is exposed.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Goriders

It’s f’ing embarrassing at this point. The younger generations in this country are going to be saddled with the massive debt that this collection of idiots have run up. Like a boat anchor on their standards of living. I can’t believe any of them would still consider voting for the “leaders” that have undermined their future.

The federal debt is not going to concern them nearly as much as the capture of the political system by seniors (see housing prices) and the capture of wealth by the ultra-rich.

Poillievre has the potential to do a lot of lasting damage if he governs the way he opposes, by emboldening the alt right and refusing to reject their lunatic conspiracy theories.

[Azure]

Hey, its actually worse than we thought. Our finance minister was fired over a zoom call, told that a non-elected person would replace her, then the non-elected person pulled out, and then our esteemed PM made the biggest idiot in the Liberal party the finance minister.

Is it possible to look like bigger idiots?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Hey, its actually worse than we thought. Our finance minister was fired over a zoom call, told that a non-elected person would replace her, then the non-elected person pulled out, and then our esteemed PM made the biggest idiot in the Liberal party the finance minister.

Is it possible to look like bigger idiots?

Wrong,



Jenn O'connell and Mark Gerrettsen were sadly not named.



I was kind of hoping that if Trudeau was going down in flames, he would name those two gas cans to key roles for the memes.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Now, just to be clear, I’m not saying that it’s the right or wrong thing to do. I also don’t want a bunch of explanations for why he should or shouldn’t do it. I’m simply asking for a direct answer to this question:

Do you really not understand the difference between having a new leader for a party that you’ll(begrudgingly or not) continue supporting because that party will keep certain programs or policies that are important to your own voter base in place in the short term, and forcing an election that will likely put those programs in jeopardy?

The words within your question show why Singh is wrong to try and force Trudeau to resign (so he can, presumably still prop up the sinking Liberal government).

Short term.

The NDP only seem concerned with the short term, and not concerned about the future of their own party. They are alienating their own voting base who might have seen them as a strong alternative to the Liberals.

Not only are the NDP enabling the weak leadership of Trudeau by supporting the government, they are also giving their own voter base the impression that they can’t stand on their own two feet as a party independent from the Liberals.

I understand this isn’t the answer you wanted to hear, but it’s the reality of the situation. If the NDP want to be a viable alternative and try to gain seats in the next election, they must cut ties with the Liberals, and not just hand wave about the Liberal leadership.