Liberal NDP Merger Possibility?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

So, you're trying to deflect the topic onto something else so that you don't have to address his point?

His point being what? That Harper lied about saying he won't run a deficit? Politicians lie all the time.

Harper is playing politics. He may be an economist, but he's a politician first.

I don't particularity prefer the way he handled certain things either, especially his 'projects'...but its water under the bridge. The liberals would have done the same thing.

Unless you're naive enough to think one party is better than the other at not doing what is in their own best interest.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I don't recall Harper promising a balanced budget but, even if he did the threat of the other three parties joining together against him forced Harper into deficit spending. All the other parties complained at the time he was doing too little. They would have spent more.

He did say he would not run a deficit during the last election debate. I didn't believe him at the time, but he was under pressure and would have been totally hammered by the rest of the parties if he said otherwise.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

That's certainly a valid observation (as supported by the rest of your post).

My point goes a little more towards credibility though. In all these years, I've never doubted Duceppe's goal to tear Canada in half, or Layton's commitment to a hippy, utopian paradise). I've never questioned whether there's alternative motives in play, or if they're lining their pockets with my cash, etc, etc. They don't bounce around on issues (even when unpopular) and seem to be very consistent in their approach to representation.

They both know (without a doubt) that they have ZERO chance of ever forming government, yet they continue to press on. Oddly enough, I think that this willingness to lose (because of a commitment to their ideals) shows them to be better leaders.....I sincerely believe that they're in it for what they believe in, not for the necessarily for the glory of being PM.

My knock on them is WHAT they're representing, but I'm continually impressed by the way they go about representing it. Crap, if one of them magically turned into a Federalist that is (truly) socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they'd be virtually unbeatable.

to me it would be tougher playing basketball for the Harlem Globetrotters then the New Jersey Generals.

As a General, you show up, run any play that you want, and act like a dofus when the other guy hides the ball up his shirt.

When your a globetrotter you have to practice harder sink baskets and if you play poorly your probably traded to the Generals for a bucket full of confetti.

The Bloc and the NDP are the generals. They can say what they want with no real rammifications, at the end of the day nobody cares if your performing or not, your going to get paid. And you have a tiny minority of the fan base that hopes you fricken win a game for once.

The Libs and the Cons are the globetrotters. They have to be careful about what they say, they have to balance their statements against cause and effect. Everyone watches them with a glinted eye. You have a large fan base who will abandon you if you screw up.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

That's certainly a valid observation (as supported by the rest of your post).

My point goes a little more towards credibility though. In all these years, I've never doubted Duceppe's goal to tear Canada in half, or Layton's commitment to a hippy, utopian paradise). I've never questioned whether there's alternative motives in play, or if they're lining their pockets with my cash, etc, etc. They don't bounce around on issues (even when unpopular) and seem to be very consistent in their approach to representation.

They both know (without a doubt) that they have ZERO chance of ever forming government, yet they continue to press on. Oddly enough, I think that this willingness to lose (because of a commitment to their ideals) shows them to be better leaders.....I sincerely believe that they're in it for what they believe in, not for the necessarily for the glory of being PM.

My knock on them is WHAT they're representing, but I'm continually impressed by the way they go about representing it. Crap, if one of them magically turned into a Federalist that is (truly) socially liberal and fiscally conservative, they'd be virtually unbeatable.

What makes you think their willingness to lose is because of their ideals, and not because of their desire to continue getting a relatively fat paycheck (and very sweet pension) while doing relatively little actual work? Nobody expects anything of them - in fact everyone expects they'll continue to lose election after election and that in between every election they'll oppose everything while providing zero in the way of alternatives with actual implementation plans.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure they were. Harper stated clearly that they wouldn't run a deficit because they are addictive.

I think the Conservatives projections in economic policy and their platform were probably worked out the summer before when commodity prices were high e.g. oil at $147. a bbl.

I seem to recall he made the above statement at the start of the campaign when things weren't too bad, and later on when the world economic situation started to deteriorate, and under pressure from the opposition, he changed his position somewhat.

What did you expect Harper to do under the rapidly changing circumstances during the election campaign? Harper would have looked pretty foolish, saying one day "We're looking pretty good and we don't intend to run a deficit", and then a short time later saying, "Oh by the way, I was wrong, Lehman Bros. just collapsed, the world is going to hell in a handbasket, and we are going to have to spend a massive amount to help get ourselves and the world back on track".

He did what he thought was prudent during the time, by making statements which tried to alleviate the fear in people. I even remember him saying he thought is was a good time to purchase stocks, so clearly he was confident in the economic health of the nation.

[Slava]

^I guess I have high expectations for the PMO. I expect them to be honest about their projections and make them based on prudent amounts, not only when oil is $147/bbl. I expect them to level with the citizens about their budgetary plans in a broad sense. You don't have to tell me that here is where every dollar is going and here is our excellent forecaster.

When an economist who is the incumbent prime minister sees events teanspiring like they were in the fall of 2008 and is on a national platform he should be held accountable for those statements. When he campaigns on a platform of fiscal conservatism and prudent management I don't want to hear about deficits on one hand (which I actually believe in if they are funding the right things) and then about all the money getting funneled into CPC ridings or paving new sidewalks for a million bucks. I also don't want to hear about rampant spending to host dignataries for 24 hours when it has been done here in Canada for a fraction of the cost! Maybe my standards are too high.

I'm also glad you brought up his comment about stocks being cheap. That is something that a guy like me says to a client but it's not something you say to retirees who have just watched their life savings drop by 40%. I don't think that was brilliant politicking or confidence at all. It was just a dumb thing to say for a man in that postion.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

But it is a good one none the less. Canada has looked great compared to the rest of the world in this economic down turn. That has helped Harper to keep the govenment.

If inflation starts to rise Harper will raise interest rates to combat that. I just don't see the dramatic rises you do. Is there another Western country you can point to who have done a better job managing its interest rates during this downturn?

There's a theory in the US that it's the Republicans who keep the US economy running, but by the time their tax cuts work their way through the economy, the Democrats are in power. In Canada it seems to be the opposite, as the Liberals are the fiscal conservatives. Canada was in great shape before the downturn because the Liberals had done a pretty good job cleaning up the mess Mulroney made. And even then, a huge part of our deficit now is the tax cuts and increased spending Harper implemented before the recession. Our position would have been even better had he not done so, as that spending could have been used as recession stimulus, instead of overstimulus in the boom. And it's the Bank of Canada that manages interest rates, not Stephen Harper.

You (and others) are giving Harper credit for things he has nothing to do with. If Harper had inherited a mess he'd probably be looking like a fool right now, as his policy decisions haven't been particularly good.

Originally Posted by flamesfever

He did what he thought was prudent during the time, by making statements which tried to alleviate the fear in people. I even remember him saying he thought is was a good time to purchase stocks, so clearly he was confident in the economic health of the nation.

I like your example of Harper's prudence. What's not prudent is cutting GST and blowing up spending to balance the budget when the economony is at its peak and you should be running a sizeable surplus.