|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 26, 2011 11:05:10 GMT -5
On the other hand, I don't mind a US style crash to ;ick up some cheap real estate. *shrug* Well, there might be a few opportunities to make some coin if you don't mind foreign investments. I saw a special on this, but apparently the USA is close to another meltdown. However, this time it appears that it will be state by state crashing. Check out "60 Minutes: Day of Reckoning" when you have the chance. There's no way our parliament doesn't know about this. My question to them is, how prepared are we to sustain another meltdown south of the border? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 26, 2011 11:14:22 GMT -5
F-35s Expected to Cost at Least Double: DNDHarper says $75 million per jet in purchase, and $7 billion in fleet maintenance over the next 20 years. Officials say likely $150 million per jet in purchase, and $24 billion in fleet maintenance over the next 30 years (which works out to be $16 billion over 20 years....over double Harper's $7 billion.) Like I said, I think we need them, so I'm not for the Liberals playing the "we'll scrap the plan" card....but I'd rather not get the soft-sell figures from our PM, either. Let's come to a consensus on the cost here. I know it's a lot to ask of any politician...but can't we be honest about it? This issue has turned out to be a bad joke for the Harper government. It smacks of irresponsible research. But, I have to ask myself; why do the Tories want the Cadillac of the Skies? It's top of the line, okay, but why this particular aircraft. I honestly don't know, but I'm thinking that the Tories have a vision for our armed forces that would require that kind of technology. In the past Canada has been relied upon to provide UN forces in various parts of the world and that's an honourable calling. However, I'm thinking that the Tories may want a capability that might make the Canadian Forces a bit more versatile. The F-35 might be only one purchase in such a vision. But, if they want that capability they'll simply have to do more research. It's a tough sell toe "John Q. Canadian" when stuff like this is revealed. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 26, 2011 12:08:57 GMT -5
I am surprised that none have mentioned the rise of the NDP in Quebec. Could this mean the end of the Bloc?
To wit: this just in from the Department of I Will Believe It when I See It. The latest tracking poll has Gilles Duceppe is trailing the NDP in his Montreal riding.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 26, 2011 12:14:12 GMT -5
I am surprised that none have mentioned the rise of the NDP in Quebec. Could this mean the end of the Bloc? To wit: this just in from the Department of I Will Believe It when I See It. The latest tracking poll has Gilles Duceppe is trailing the NDP in his Montreal riding. It's hard to read them all, mate. One page back, though. Quebecers are looking at different options now as well. ============================================================= Move over Gilles, Jack's leading in Quebec
By Mark Dunn, Parliamentary Bureau TORONTO - The earth rumbled under the NDP campaign Thursday after polls showed Jack Layton has made an historic breakthrough in Quebec to surpass the separatist Bloc as the No. 1 choice for Quebecers ... habsrus.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=NonHockey&action=post&thread=15909&page=9 (link) |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 26, 2011 12:17:45 GMT -5
as mentioned above [OK, previous page], polling is less than reliable . . . cell phones and refusing to answer questions two main problems. add to that one person might answer a question but not speak for others in the house [case in point: my wife actually answered a call and said who she would vote for but there are others in the house that will definitely not vote "her way", but "her voice was heard". beyond that, no one would lie, would they?
I'm not surprised Jack is doing so well . . . he appears to be the least smarmy right now. but I thing that when it comes right down to it next Monday, there are going to be a lot of people that will lower their pencils and change their intended vote from "NDP" to "traditional party" because they just can't give the party their vote. and . . . it is one thing to intend to vote NDP, it's another to actually go out and vote . . . it's the young vote attracted to him, and the young vote that doesn't necessarily vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Apr 26, 2011 12:23:22 GMT -5
I am surprised that none have mentioned the rise of the NDP in Quebec. Could this mean the end of the Bloc? To wit: this just in from the Department of I Will Believe It when I See It. The latest tracking poll has Gilles Duceppe is trailing the NDP in his Montreal riding. It's hard to read them all, mate. One page back, though. ooops apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 26, 2011 12:59:50 GMT -5
But, I have to ask myself; why do the Tories want the Cadillac of the Skies? It's top of the line, okay, but why this particular aircraft. I honestly don't know, but I'm thinking that the Tories have a vision for our armed forces that would require that kind of technology. That's always a fear of mine, Dis....that we join a hegemonic mindset. To a degree, I could buy the argument that such fighters would be for defense against such an ideology. Depending on the size of that nation, though....well....to quote Chief Brody...."you're going to need a bigger boat." So, one could definitely view it as a "join the club" purchase. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 26, 2011 13:09:31 GMT -5
No surprise to me that Layton is doing well in Quebec. It's hard for people outside of the province to get a read on what's going on here (it's hard enough for the locals to figure it out), so instead they just fall back on the old "separatists demanding hand-outs" card. Of course there is a bit of truth to that (it works, so why wouldn't you play it?) but the reality is much more complex. Support for sovereignty/separatism has ebbed and is generally hovering around 30%. A core which will always be there, but hardly the general sentiment of the population. In the meantime there is a demand for more English to be taught in schools, a push-back against making French CEGEPs mandatory for French people, and as that recent poll suggested a general admiration and respect for the people of Alberta and the rest of Canada in general. But on a political level we are stuck. Provincially we have one of the worst and most corrupt governments in decades in Jean Charest's Liberals, and a throw-back party that still relies on the old English-People-Are-Out-To-Get-Us mantra to win votes in the PQ. People don't particularly like either party, which lead to the rise of the Action-Democratique, which unfortunately self-imploded under the weight of actually having to do something. People look around and see the Montreal mayor's office being investigated for fraud and corruption, a major bridge that trucks are not allowed to pass over because they might fall through, and a second major bridge that may or may not be on the verge of collapse, depending on who you believe, the inspection company or the government (a bridge which the local Catholic diocese has erected a billboard before encouraging people to pray[/color] before crossing). Corruption everywhere, to the point where Macleans called us the most corrupt place in the world. Federally we have the choice between the Liberals, who out-and-out stole from us, the Conservatives who we flirted with two elections ago but who never delivered on anything they promised (right Skilly?) and the Bloc, which has kept it's nose clean but really hasn't done anything either. If you want change, the NDP is the only remaining party. Which doesn't mean I think they will win anything here. I think it will be another Bloc almost-sweep, but not because I think people have any real faith in them. Just because there really isn't any other choice. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 26, 2011 14:12:58 GMT -5
No surprise to me that Layton is doing well in Quebec. It's hard for people outside of the province to get a read on what's going on here (it's hard enough for the locals to figure it out), so instead they just fall back on the old "separatists demanding hand-outs" card. Of course there is a bit of truth to that (it works, so why wouldn't you play it?) but the reality is much more complex. Support for sovereignty/separatism has ebbed and is generally hovering around 30%. A core which will always be there, but hardly the general sentiment of the population. In the meantime there is a demand for more English to be taught in schools, a push-back against making French CEGEPs mandatory for French people, and as that recent poll suggested a general admiration and respect for the people of Alberta and the rest of Canada in general. But on a political level we are stuck. Provincially we have one of the worst and most corrupt governments in decades in Jean Charest's Liberals, and a throw-back party that still relies on the old English-People-Are-Out-To-Get-Us mantra to win votes in the PQ. People don't particularly like either party, which lead to the rise of the Action-Democratique, which unfortunately self-imploded under the weight of actually having to do something. People look around and see the Montreal mayor's office being investigated for fraud and corruption, a major bridge that trucks are not allowed to pass over because they might fall through, and a second major bridge that may or may not be on the verge of collapse, depending on who you believe, the inspection company or the government (a bridge which the local Catholic diocese has erected a billboard before encouraging people to pray[/color] before crossing). Corruption everywhere, to the point where Macleans called us the most corrupt place in the world. Federally we have the choice between the Liberals, who out-and-out stole from us, the Conservatives who we flirted with two elections ago but who never delivered on anything they promised (right Skilly?) and the Bloc, which has kept it's nose clean but really hasn't done anything either. If you want change, the NDP is the only remaining party. Which doesn't mean I think they will win anything here. I think it will be another Bloc almost-sweep, but not because I think people have any real faith in them. Just because there really isn't any other choice. [/quote] Excellent post BC! I remember when Charest came on the scene. If I remember right, the feds brought him in to counter the PQ. At first I thought it was Charest who saved the federalist bacon, but from what I was told later (either by you, Doc or PTH ... we're talking a while back, though) that the Liberal victory had more to do with people simply wanting a change in their province. Leave the independence movement alone for a while and get on with governing the province (something Jacques Parizeau failed to do while he was in office). Federally, people seem content to give an alternative (NDP) at least a look, which I think represents progress; maybe not enough progress to get the NDP elected, but still, people are considering options. But, it's almost like you say; people are feeling they're running out of choices. They can't trust their municipal officials, their provincial government or the majority of their federal choices as well. Here's another question for you, buds. Just as an aside, but what kind of job would Lucien Bouchard do for the province? Not that he'd come out of retirement ... can you imagine retirement with Audry Best! ... sorry, sorry ... a flash of weakness there ... But it seemed things were going rather well when Bouchard was actually governing the province. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 27, 2011 2:36:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 27, 2011 2:43:17 GMT -5
don't worry, this will be Harper's last election -- if he wins a minority the knives will be out; if he wins a majority he will "retire on top". It's hard to imagine that someone who loves power as much as Harper would voluntarily retire in his 50s. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 27, 2011 5:54:53 GMT -5
I think he's [sort of] a realist though MC . . . 4 years allows the Liberals to re-jig and find a new [younger] face and retool policy . . . it also allows the Conservatives to self-destruct [if the Liberals had waited a bit longer to bring about this election the stuff they threw would have clung to the wall better].
4 years is also a long time for Layton and the NDP to cool down as their policy will be under more scrutiny and it won't simply be Jack's personality leading the charge [whodathunk that Layton would be the one with personality?].
|
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Apr 27, 2011 7:09:46 GMT -5
Here's another question for you, buds. Just as an aside, but what kind of job would Lucien Bouchard do for the province? Not that he'd come out of retirement ... can you imagine retirement with Audry Best! ... sorry, sorry ... a flash of weakness there ... But it seemed things were going rather well when Bouchard was actually governing the province. Cheers. Personally, and maybe Doc has a different view of him than I do, but personally I just don't think Bouchard had the stomach for the "game" of politics. He was always a soft-separatist, and when he joined Mulroney's Tories he was still a soft-separatist. So when he switched to the Bloc I think he was shocked at the vitriol and hatred that was spewed his way, the cries of traitor and all that. In his head he was who he had always been, so he didn't get the surprise and sense of betrayal others felt. Then when he lost the referendum, still a soft-separatist, he decided to go about his job of running Quebec as premier, and do things like merge the municipalities on the Island of Montreal. Again, I think he was shocked at the anger and vitriol spewed his way over that. Wasn't it his job to do what he thought was best for the province? He was doing what he thought was best. He didn't have the time, nor the inclination to "play the game" of wooing local mayors, kissing babies, making back-room deals and all that. He saw something that he thought should be done, so he did it. And was heavily criticized for doing so. Then, the PQ long-knives came out, mainly because he was a soft-separatist who was trying to govern instead of you know, pitching separatism. And again, I think that surprised and disappointed him. He was just doing his job, being who he thought he had always been, and he was surprised that people didn't see him that way. He didn't want to "play the game" of placating the hard-core PQ element, while working the other side of the fence and soft-selling the undecided and his fellow soft-separatists. It was just too much work. I'm not saying that Bouchard was an honest politician. But I do believe that in HIS mind he thought he was. I think he felt that he was always true to his beliefs and who he was, and it was very difficult for him to act differently. To play the game of offering something and then taking it back, of saying things you don't mean, of kissing a**, fake smiling and all that. It just wasn't how he viewed himself. Perhaps that's noble, perhaps it's just arrogant and pretentious. I don't know. But that's how I see him. As an aside, Bouchard and Best divorced a while back, and Best unfortunately died of cancer this past January... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 27, 2011 10:43:15 GMT -5
If Ignatieff Doesn't Make Hay With This======================================================== Planted info on Ignatieff “should concern Canadians” says Sun CEO
By Pierre Karl Peladeau, President and CEO of Sun Media CorporationThree weeks ago, our vice-president for Sun News, Kory Teneycke, was contacted by the former deputy chief of staff to Prime Minister Harper, Patrick Muttart. He claimed to be in possession of a report prepared by a "U.S. source", outlining the activities and whereabouts of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in the weeks and months leading to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. The report suggested that rather than being an observer from the sidelines, as he wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece after he entered Canadian politics, Ignatieff was in fact on the front lines and on the ground at a forward operating base in Kuwait, assisting U.S. State Department and American military officials in their strategy sessions. Muttart also provided a compelling electronic image of a man very closely resembling Michael Ignatieff in American military fatigues, brandishing a rifle in a picture purported to have been taken in Kuwait in December 2002.======================================================== Only problem....the picture was low-res. Sun Media did their due diligence and requested a higher-resolution picture. They pressed and finally got one...and it was clearly not Ignatieff. ======================================================== Bad information is an occupational hazard in this business, and fortunately our in-house protocols prevented the unthinkable. But it is the ultimate source of this material that is profoundly troubling to me, my colleagues and, I think, should be of concern to all Canadians. It is my belief that this planted information was intended to first and foremost seriously damage Michael Ignatieff's campaign but in the process to damage the integrity and credibility of Sun Media and, more pointedly, that of our new television operation, Sun News. If any proof is needed to dispel the false yet still prevalent notion that Sun Media and the Sun News Network are the official organs of the Conservative Party of Canada, I offer this unfortunate episode as Exhibit A.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2011 11:21:25 GMT -5
The last part makes me think that it was "see, we're not a Conservative mouth piece" exercise. For all we know it could have been, "hey look at this, we were told it's Iggy, what do you think?"
Dirty? I don't know. If they got that picture and told it was Iggy, why on earth would they hide it and not give it to the media to make hay with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Apr 27, 2011 12:23:04 GMT -5
Bouchard is charismatic, assertive and intimidating. He's a leader and as such is power hungry. He surfaced at a time when there was none of that on the Federal and Quebec political scene. Still none of that today if you ask me. During the last referendum campaign the YES side was greatly struggling with Parizeau as the YES leader, they were at one point, at an all time low in surveys. Then they decided to give the ball to Bouchard with about a month to go in the campaign and the YES option literally exploded in surveys from 25-30% to an all time high 60 some. All within a few weeks. It took some last minute foul play from Chretien's Liberals to actually pull the NO upset, but to the opinion of most, if Bouchard had been the YES leader from the beginning, Quebec would be succeeded by now.
He stepped in as PM in lieu of Parizeau and as BC explained he just didn't expect all the political BS he had to deal with and simply gave up on that. The current political scene is one of please-all promises and demagogy, Bouchard was just too autocratic to be happy in that.
The rise of the NDP in Quebec rest, IMO, again in people siding with the most charismatic party leader, be it Jack Layton and the idea to "try something else". Traditional parties are pretty much dead outside of the Montreal island, in Quebec right now and The Bloc has failed to renew its purpose and message so that vote for the last few elections has been more a question of "rooting for the home team" more than anything else. Will that Orange Wave translates into actual seats in Quebec remains to be seen though. Like BC I still believe in the end, it will be a massive Bloc delegation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boston_Habs on Apr 27, 2011 12:46:51 GMT -5
Like BC I still believe in the end, it will be a massive Bloc delegation. Which is one of the biggest reasons why Canadian federal politics has become so dysfunctional, with a string of minority governments and frequent elections. You have a single issue party in the Bloc with no agenda other than to advance the interests of Quebec. So they take up a ton of seats and it makes it hard for the center mainstream parties to cobble together a working majority. Throw in the NDP and it splits the vote even further. In the old days, Mulroney and the Tories were able to bypass the Liberal stronghold in Ontario by selling a more decentralized system to Quebec and the West. And it it really should have worked. I'm old enough to remember the Meech Lake Accord. If that had been ratified it would have placated Quebec, the Bloc never would have existed, and we would have a more traditional dynamic with the Liberals and the Tories fighting it out and the NDP playing spoiler. But Quebecers like to be on the winning side. So if they can't bring themselves to get behind a national federal party in big numbers, voting with the Bloc will always be the next best thing. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 27, 2011 15:11:31 GMT -5
The last part makes me think that it was "see, we're not a Conservative mouth piece" exercise. For all we know it could have been, "hey look at this, we were told it's Iggy, what do you think?" Dirty? I don't know. If they got that picture and told it was Iggy, why on earth would they hide it and not give it to the media to make hay with it? You'd think they would've have done their own due diligence with that picture before turning it into a major newspaper. Pretty basic. Very pulpy of them, I'd say. Kind of like using an Auditor General's quote from years ago to sell your 2010 Summit spending. And I think we'd be foolish to think they weren't in possession of the high-res version all along. Would "honest mistake", "benefit of the doubt", or "what do you think" be an excuse had another party done the same to Harper? I don't trust ANY of them, HA. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Apr 27, 2011 19:44:12 GMT -5
Would "honest mistake", "benefit of the doubt", or "what do you think" be an excuse had another party done the same to Harper? . It was already done and a lot worse. 2 million dollars in ads on something Harper never said. DETTAH, N.W.T. - The Liberal party is asking Canadians to help them fix an ad featuring Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's views about health care. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff accepts a sign from a crowd member during a campaign stop in Yellowknife, N.W.T., on Monday. Following a complaint from the Tories, the Liberals agreed to pull the ad, which featured a wrongly attributed quote suggesting Harper was opposed to universal access to public health care under the Canada Health Act. But instead of pulling the ad altogether, the Liberals say they will would launch an online poll with actual quotes from Harper to determine which one will replace the inaccurate quote. The TV advertisement features a narrator saying that Harper has said the law which guarantees universal health care should be "scrapped." It then shows a 2010 headline from the Globe and Mail, which reads, "It's Past Time the Feds Scrapped the Canada Health Act," that is inaccurately attributed to Harper. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the quote was used because it had appeared in reputable news agencies such as the Globe and Mail and Maclean's magazine. The Liberals said they would change the ad after the Globe and Mail issued a retraction that confirmed it made a mistake in attributing the comments to Harper. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Apr 28, 2011 0:33:40 GMT -5
They should've pulled the ads right away....THEN demanded the news sources print a retraction, taking the blame....if that was indeed the case.
One can find dirty pool in every campaign.
And they all have "excuses".
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 28, 2011 5:56:18 GMT -5
style [image] over substance . . . as in all of life.
Conservatives: vote for us, the other parties are too scary.
Liberals: vote for us, the Conservatives are too scary.
NDP: vote for us, we have a platform! [oh, and the other two parties are scary].
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 28, 2011 10:48:31 GMT -5
Bouchard is charismatic, assertive and intimidating. He's a leader and as such is power hungry. He surfaced at a time when there was none of that on the Federal and Quebec political scene. Still none of that today if you ask me. During the last referendum campaign the YES side was greatly struggling with Parizeau as the YES leader, they were at one point, at an all time low in surveys. Then they decided to give the ball to Bouchard with about a month to go in the campaign and the YES option literally exploded in surveys from 25-30% to an all time high 60 some. All within a few weeks. It took some last minute foul play from Chretien's Liberals to actually pull the NO upset, but to the opinion of most, if Bouchard had been the YES leader from the beginning, Quebec would be succeeded by now. He stepped in as PM in lieu of Parizeau and as BC explained he just didn't expect all the political BS he had to deal with and simply gave up on that. The current political scene is one of please-all promises and demagogy, Bouchard was just too autocratic to be happy in that. The rise of the NDP in Quebec rest, IMO, again in people siding with the most charismatic party leader, be it Jack Layton and the idea to "try something else". Traditional parties are pretty much dead outside of the Montreal island, in Quebec right now and The Bloc has failed to renew its purpose and message so that vote for the last few elections has been more a question of "rooting for the home team" more than anything else. Will that Orange Wave translates into actual seats in Quebec remains to be seen though. Like BC I still believe in the end, it will be a massive Bloc delegation. So, timing is everything. I remember thinking back in the day that anyone forming a government after Parizeau's tenure would do well. From what I was told governing the province was a secondary responsibility to the nationalist movement. He almost pulled it off, but I remember thinking that the movement was more about Parizeau and his legacy, than it was about what was best for Quebec. After the PQ lost the referendum by less than a percentage point, he got down to actually governing the province and continued to do this until he finally left office. But, I'm really not sure of my perception to be honest. Is this an accurate perception, Doc? As for the NDP, well, they're making strides in both Quebec and Ontario. I think you're right insomuch as, of the leaders in this election Jack Layton has the most charisma. He's coming off hip replacement surgery and from what I understand he's still battling prostate cancer. Neither has slowed him down and it's full steam ahead. I've even notice more NDP ads and they're flogging their leader and their platform during prime time more than I've ever seen before. Can't say it's going to sway my vote, though. The Tories have provided more financial options to me around tax time and they know how to maintain and promote a strong military. I can't say for sure, but under the NDP I can see the military going back to blue berets (an honourable calling), having their numbers slashed and their equipment neglected (like under the Liberals). And, again while I don't know for sure, I'm thinking we're going to be taxed out the hoop for the social programs Mr Layton wants to implement. The worst-case scenario might be comparing us to Denmark where 50% + on personal income taxes is the norm and has been for years now. I'm not ready for that to be honest. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 28, 2011 11:11:44 GMT -5
As for the NDP, well, they're making strides in both Quebec and Ontario. I think you're right insomuch as, of the leaders in this election Jack Layton has the most charisma. He's coming off hip replacement surgery and from what I understand he's still battling prostate cancer. Neither has slowed him down and it's full steam ahead. [/uote] he's definitely getting the populist vote you can be sure, Dis. military is an evil that must be endured, but it will be slash and burn. back to using the military to sandbag floods in Manitoba nd clearing the snow in TOronto [and no, I can't let that one go ;D ] I don't think "worsts-case", but it will be "bad-case". the platform is full of platitudes and good [according to some] ideas but not at all costed. multi-billions of program promises paid for with raising corporate business taxes to 19½% [not going to happen]. $700 a month per child cash to parents, the start of universal day care. throwing more money at the provinces for health care [without fixing the problem], education [without fixing the problem -- soon an MBA will be the new grade 8], and giving Quebec separatists everything they want [so that soon enough they'll be able to honestly say "we don't need TROC" . . . to start. while I think that the Conservatives have ignored our social responsibilities, the NDP goes too far left . . . and while they claim the Conservatives are too beholden to big business, they forget that they are beholden to the unions [did you know that NDP convention votes are weighted, and union leaders (perhaps members, not sure) votes count more than "regular" participants?]. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 28, 2011 20:26:16 GMT -5
Can't say it's going to sway my vote, though. The Tories have provided more financial options to me around tax time and they know how to maintain and promote a strong military. I can't say for sure, but under the NDP I can see the military going back to blue berets (an honourable calling), having their numbers slashed and their equipment neglected (like under the Liberals). And, again while I don't know for sure, I'm thinking we're going to be taxed out the hoop for the social programs Mr Layton wants to implement. The worst-case scenario might be comparing us to Denmark where 50% + on personal income taxes is the norm and has been for years now. I'm not ready for that to be honest. Cheers. My wife works for the federal government ... they were told before the election that Ottawa is looking for "efficiencies" (yep thats what they were called) and cuts have to be made throughout government. Her department is going to be hardest hit apparently (DFO). But Harper has to find billions of dollars for his promises too Dis ... and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts the military does not come out unscathed. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Apr 28, 2011 21:16:18 GMT -5
A price must be paid—but by whom?
Andrew Coyne decides his ballot question, and who he will vote for
by Andrew Coyne on Thursday, April 28, 2011
A price must be paid—but by whom?
Voting is a kind of jury duty, and like the jury system, derives much of its strength from the participants’ lack of specialized knowledge of the subject. A specialist can become jaded, or obsessed with finer points; the public has the benefit of distance. My own experience as a political writer confirms this. I will frequently get exercised about this or that controversy, and wonder why the public is not of the same mind. But the public is called upon to judge not only this controversy, but a great number of issues of varying weights, and in the fullness of time, as that particular issue takes its place among the others, it often does not seem quite as all-important to the public as it had earlier seemed to me. And most of the time the public is right.
To vote is to distill a complex array of different, possibly conflicting considerations into one: the parties, the leaders, the local candidates, plus whatever issues are pertinent to you, and the parties’ positions on each. Which makes that perennial journalistic search for the “ballot-box question” such a preposterous enterprise. Every single voter will have his own ballot-box question, or questions. I cannot tell you what yours is, or should be. I can only tell you mine.
For me there are two issues of overwhelming importance in this election. The first is the economy, not only in its own right but for what it means for our ability to finance the social programs we have created for ourselves. The second is the alarming state of our democracy: the decaying of Parliament’s ability to hold governments to account, and the decline, not unrelated, in Parliament’s own accountability to the people.
I can eliminate two options off the top. While both the NDP and the Greens offer appealing proposals for democratic reform, I can’t bring myself to vote for either. It isn’t only their policies—the enormous increases in spending and taxes, the ill-judged market interventions—but their personnel. Simply put, neither party is ready for government.
So the choice for me is between the Conservatives and the Liberals. And as I have wrestled with it, the ballot question that has occurred to me is this: would the Liberals do more harm to the economy than the Conservatives would do to democracy? Or perhaps: would the Liberals harm the economy more than the Conservatives would? Would re-electing the Conservatives do greater harm to our democracy than electing the Liberals? And: which concern should weigh more heavily in the balance?
I give the nod to the Conservatives on the economy, though not by a wide margin. I think their instincts are generally sounder. But their readiness to play politics keeps getting in the way. So while they have a good record in some areas—cutting corporate taxes, opening trade talks with Europe and India, abolishing tariffs on intermediate goods and introducing tax-free savings accounts among them, as well as their deft handling of the banking crisis—it has to be balanced against the politically driven plunge into deficit, the bailout of the auto industry, the cuts in GST rather than income taxes, and an approach to foreign investment that can only be described as whimsical.
The same caution applies to their platform. I don’t doubt they can cut $4 billion out of annual program spending by 2015, without harm to needed services; my only concern is whether they will. Their unwillingness to spell out what they would cut does nothing to allay that concern. More positively, they do seem to have nailed their colours to cutting corporate tax rates. But how much more could both personal and corporate rates be cut if they did not persist in doling out tax credits and subsidies to favoured constituencies?
The Liberal platform, on the other hand, is more consistent, at least in economic policy terms: it is wrong-headed in every respect—higher spending, higher taxing, more meddlesome generally. Its saving grace is that it is only half-heartedly so. The Liberals would raise corporate taxes, but more for show than anything else: lifting rates back to the 18 per cent they were last year is the wrong way to go, but hardly the apocalypse. They aren’t going to get anything like the $6 billion in revenue they claim from these, but neither do they need it. The $5.5 billion in extra spending they propose is barely two per cent of program spending, and would not on its own threaten the country’s fiscal position.
And that’s what it would take to really worry about what the Liberals would do to the economy in the short term. When it comes to taxes or regulations, it takes a long time for even the stupidest government policy—for example, the Liberals’ proposal to shower selected “Canadian Champion Sectors” with subsidies—to really harm the economy. It’s macroeconomic policy that can really run you onto the rocks: running massive deficits, or letting inflation get out of hand. Call me naive, but I do not think the Liberals would do either—even in combination with the NDP. If anything, I suspect they would be at pains to prove their fiscal-conservative credentials, for fear of financial markets’ wrath.
Still, there are differences in long-term direction between the two platforms that are worth considering. Though neither party seems inclined in the short term to brake the torrid growth in health care spending, the broad brush of Tory policy is better suited to spurring the long-term productivity growth that alone can pay for it. And while the Tories’ regulation-heavy approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is in principle more costly, per megatonne, than the Liberals’ cap and trade scheme, the overall costs are likely to be less: because the Liberals are likely to bungle their plan, and because the Tories are unlikely to pursue theirs. Sensible policy will await the return of a carbon tax to political respectability.
So that’s the economy. And on democracy? Here the choice is starker—not because I invest any great hopes in the Liberals, but because the Tory record is so dreadful. To be sure, they introduced the Accountability Act on taking office: incomplete, loophole filled, but progress nonetheless. And they have made fitful efforts to reform the Senate, when not packing it with their own strategists, fundraisers and toadies.
But the long train of offences against democratic and parliamentary principle—from proroguing Parliament, twice, to evade Parliament’s reach; to withholding documents essential to parliamentary oversight, even in defiance of Parliament’s explicit demands; to intimidating parliamentary officers and politicizing the bureaucracy; to such breaches of trust as the Emerson and Fortier appointments, the taxation of income trusts, and the evisceration of their own law on fixed election dates—are simply unforgivable.
Add to that the coarse, vicious brand of politics, the mindless partisanship for which the Tories have become known: equal parts terrorizing their own MPs and demonizing their opponents. And add to that the extreme centralization of power in the Prime Minister’s Office, the trivialization of even cabinet posts as sources of independent authority, never mind the barracking of committees . . . Enough.
But much of this went on when the Liberals were in office, too, didn’t it? Yes. That’s just the point. To compare the Harper Tories to the Chrétien Liberals, and to the Mulroney Tories before them, and to the Trudeau Liberals before them, is hardly to excuse them: quite the opposite. The decline of democratic politics may have begun under the Liberals, but it has continued under the Tories. And it will accelerate if there is no price to be paid at the ballot box for such behaviour.
And yet, although the Liberals have tried to make accountability an issue in this election, they have signally failed. Does this mean the public has spoken? Perhaps once again I’ve attached too much importance to a single issue, at the expense of the big picture.
I don’t think so. The Liberals never gave the public much reason to translate their misgivings about the Conservatives into votes for them: a particular imperative, given their own record in office. It’s not enough just to implore people to “rise up.” You have to give them some hope that things will get better. But instead of the sort of large, concrete, attention-grabbing proposals that would really stamp the issue on the public mind, the democratic reform chapter of the Liberal platform is notably thin: reform of question period, a study of online voting, a vague nod to empowering committees.
So I will continue to make the case that we have a duty to perform as voters. Any election is in part a trial of the incumbents. Do we, the jury, find them guilty or not guilty, in this case of offences against democracy? And if we find them guilty, there has to be a penalty.
But what about the economy? In punishing the government, do we risk punishing the country? No. Economies have enormous recuperative powers: as Adam Smith said, “there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.” We can afford a period of Liberal silliness. What we cannot afford is the continuing slide of Parliament, and parliamentary democracy, into disrepair. Conventions once discarded, habits of self-government once lost, are much harder to regain.
If we return the Conservatives with a majority, if we let all that has gone on these past five years pass, then not only the Tories, but every party will draw the appropriate conclusions. But if we send them a different message, then maybe the work of bringing government to democratic heel, begun in the tumult of the last Parliament, can continue. And that is why I will be voting Liberal on May 2.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Apr 28, 2011 21:36:38 GMT -5
Can't say it's going to sway my vote, though. The Tories have provided more financial options to me around tax time and they know how to maintain and promote a strong military. I can't say for sure, but under the NDP I can see the military going back to blue berets (an honourable calling), having their numbers slashed and their equipment neglected (like under the Liberals). And, again while I don't know for sure, I'm thinking we're going to be taxed out the hoop for the social programs Mr Layton wants to implement. The worst-case scenario might be comparing us to Denmark where 50% + on personal income taxes is the norm and has been for years now. I'm not ready for that to be honest. Cheers. My wife works for the federal government ... they were told before the election that Ottawa is looking for "efficiencies" (yep thats what they were called) and cuts have to be made throughout government. Her department is going to be hardest hit apparently (DFO). But Harper has to find billions of dollars for his promises too Dis ... and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts the military does not come out unscathed. I can see that F-35 being dropped. What a white elephant for the Tories, Skilly. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Apr 29, 2011 2:51:43 GMT -5
Can't say it's going to sway my vote, though. The Tories have provided more financial options to me around tax time and they know how to maintain and promote a strong military. I can't say for sure, but under the NDP I can see the military going back to blue berets (an honourable calling), having their numbers slashed and their equipment neglected (like under the Liberals). And, again while I don't know for sure, I'm thinking we're going to be taxed out the hoop for the social programs Mr Layton wants to implement. The worst-case scenario might be comparing us to Denmark where 50% + on personal income taxes is the norm and has been for years now. I'm not ready for that to be honest. Cheers. I would rather continue to live in a democracy than have "more financial options" or a "strong military." But that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 29, 2011 5:50:36 GMT -5
there's rhetoric, and then there's rhetoric.
come on, MC . . . you are seriously suggesting the end of democracy with the Conservatives in power? was there any less [or more] of a democracy when Chretien was PM?
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 29, 2011 6:00:58 GMT -5
Cards on the table Let the unenthusiastic endorsements begin! In an excellent piece in Maclean’s, Andrew Coyne argues that the effects of not punishing the Conservatives for shamelessly accelerating the decline of our democracy would be considerably more harmful to the country in the long term than anything the Liberals could do to the economy in the short term. “We can afford a period of … silliness,” he writes. “What we cannot afford is the continuing slide of Parliament … into disrepair. … And that is why I will be voting Liberal on May 2.” The Globe and Mail‘s editorialists unsurprisingly endorse the Conservatives, arguing that while Michael Ignatieff is “an honourable opposition leader” and tough campaigner who “has risen above the personal attacks launched by the Conservatives,” “only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness … and the discipline this country needs.” Then it gets a bit weird. They laud his “desire to reform,” for example. Eh? Reform what? (They suggest several paragraphs later that Mr. Harper could lead health-care reform, and they’re right — but the only accomplishment they cite on that file is the Conservatives’ “unwise commitments … on subsidy increases to the provinces.”) The Globe likes Mr. Harper’s “strength of character” and his “resolve,” but also that he isn’t “doctrinaire.” For example, he abnegated his economic beliefs — nay, he resolved to abnegate them! — in order to support stimulus spending, and was “right to do so,” says the Globe. (So … they like his resolve except when they disagree with him?) And the Globe appreciates the Conservatives’ “greater respect … for the free market” — wait for it — “in spite of their apparent yielding to political pressure in the proposed takeover of Potash Corp.” Greater respect than whom, then? And are we not entitled to a single example of said respect? Parlons Québec William Johnson, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, explains why no one should be surprised to find that the NDP are a marketable commodity in Quebec. After all, they’ve been driving pretty hard to le panier since Jack Layton took over. The Montreal Gazette‘s editorialists take Mr. Layton to task for his blasé attitude towards separatism and the Clarity Act, and urge swooning Quebecers to take a long, hard look at him before voting — and also to ensure that their local candidate isn’t either in Las Vegas or someone who “describe herself on a Facebook page as ‘procrastination incarnate’ and her interests as ‘wrestling and vodka.’”
The Gazette‘s Don Macpherson, meanwhile, peers inside Gilles Duceppe’s nightmare. It’s all very well for him to retreat to his “hardcore sovereignist base,” says Macpherson, but “if the Bloc failed for the first time to win a majority of Quebec’s 75 seats, it would be interpreted as another rejection of sovereignty … as well.” Macpherson also has a fantastically snarky five best and five worst things about being a newly elected NDP MP in Quebec. The third worst: “Possibility of also getting elected in another riding where on ballot under false name.”
William Watson, writing in the Financial Post, keys in on one of the key contradictions in the NDP platform: Lowering small business taxes, presumably with an eye to job creation (not just to “reward them for the good work already done”), while raising big business taxes in anticipation of there being no ensuing job losses. It’s just one of many NDP promises that don’t seem to have been followed through to their logical conclusions. For example: Will people who don’t run credit card balances have to pay for the lower interest rates of those who do? Or will there just be less total credit available?
“Nothing in the culture of the federal Liberals has prepared them for life as a third party,” Chantal Hébert writes in the Toronto Star — and what’s most remarkable is they brought this on themselves. They saw all the signs suggesting they might get their rear ends handed to them — Mr. Layton’s superior leadership numbers, his popularity (even pre-surge) in Quebec, their own mid-20s poll numbers — but disregarded them, confident Canadians still viewed them as fundamentally big-time and the Dippers as fundamentally small-time. That assumption having proven false, Hébert warns it could still get worse: Right-leaning Liberals could abandon ship in hopes of limiting Mr. Layton’s sway. It’s a spot-on analysis, we’d say, but we think Hébert somewhat downplays the role of random chance and the madness of crowds. It’s not as if a lot of people outside the party saw this coming either.
Duly noted
For a second straight week, the Star‘s inimitable Bob Hepburn is all about the Harper scare quotes. We especially like that out of 500 pages, he picks the following quote in hopes of sending shivers down our spines: “I do think we’ve gone too far on some of that arts and culture funding.” We can only imagine the mass panic. “Oh God, but I already voted! Is it too late to undo? Ctrl-Z! Ctrl-Z!”
The Edmonton Journal‘s Paula Simons looks at why aboriginal Canadians vote in even lesser numbers than non-aboriginal Canadians, and the significant obstacles to changing that. A 21-year-old NDP campaign volunteer in Edmonton Centre sums up one common attitude as follows: “People say to me, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t get involved with white man’s politics.’” But it’s also true, as Simons says, that to the extent poverty and lack of educational achievement are correlated both with aboriginal communities and with not voting — no matter what one’s ethnicity — the problem is structural. Unfortunately, there’s been little talk of aboriginal affairs over the past few weeks to bend the ears of the apathetic.
link |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Apr 29, 2011 6:11:19 GMT -5
National Post endorses Harper [surprise surprise]
Globe and Mail endorses Conservatives [that is a surprise]
Toronto Star: ABC
|
|
