• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

Talking about what can or can't be done with respect to taxes and debt is meaningless without considering spending.  Debt is just a form of spending: we bought something today using money we expected to earn tomorrow.  Interest is the transaction cost of that convenience.  In some cases, that spending was an investment for which the gains outweigh the loss of interest payments; in other cases, it was consumption (flushed away).  A fact: not long after the federal deficit gap was eliminated and the revenue take ticked upward, our federal governments resumed pushing spending to higher levels.  Not all countries have taken on the same recurring spending obligations, so without identifying those it's impossible to quantify just how much a given country can really afford to trim from its tax take.
 
GAP said:
Conservatives fear N.L. wipeout in federal election
Updated Sun. Oct. 5 2008 10:22 AM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- A Conservative radio ad in Newfoundland provides an insight into the party's fear of being shut out from the province after the federal election.

"We're facing big issues this election, but none bigger than whether we're going to take up our role in the next federal government," says Craig Westcott, a Tory candidate in St. John's East.

"Voting ABC will hurt Ottawa, but it will hurt Newfoundland even more. Isolating ourselves from Canada is not an option."

Premier Danny Williams and his so-called Anything But Conservative campaign have gnawed away at the party's foundation in the province. The co-chairman of the Conservative campaign in Newfoundland recently blamed the premier's offensive for the party's struggles in fundraising and recruiting volunteers.

There has been growing debate on radio call-in shows on the impact of a "big goose egg," as Williams has characterized it, if the Conservatives win the Oct. 14 election but the province elects only opposition MPs.

Williams has argued that even with federal government representation, the province has been short-changed, so he is calling on Newfoundlanders to "stand together" and oust the Conservatives.

It is rare for a province not to elect any governing members. In seven federal elections since 1984, only two provinces have done it -- Prince Edward Island in 1988 and 2006, and Nova Scotia in 1997.

Jeff MacLeod, a political studies professor at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, said the lack of government representation in Ottawa can have consequences for a province, such as delays in funding projects.

"It does contribute in general to a sense of political isolation," MacLeod said.

"Dialogue doesn't take place. You can see relationships not working and that can influence the bureaucracy and you can lose out on programs and various initiatives as a result. People are human."

Nova Scotians rejected the Liberals in 1997 because they felt Ottawa had neglected their interests, MacLeod said.

"Nova Scotians were annoyed, and that's putting it mildly," he said, in what could also describe a sentiment widely felt in Newfoundland and Labrador.
More on link

fabian manning will get re-elected in avalon, he is very very popular down there.
 
In stormy economic seas, put Harper at the helm of the ship of state
PRESTON MANNING From Monday's Globe and Mail October 6, 2008 at 7:03 AM EDT
Article Link

You are a Canadian voter trying to decide whom to support in the federal election. In recent days, you have seen the headlines of chaos in the financial markets. You've read about lenders tightening credit and businesses delaying plans and purchases. You've felt the cost of living, especially energy costs, rising. And you've heard the rumours of worse to come: mortgage defaults, lost homes, companies closing their doors, layoffs, runaway inflation.

So, you look at our political leaders and are left with the question: Who would be the best person at the helm of the ship of state as Canada heads into stormy economic seas?

As a former leader of the Opposition, I have met all five of the federal party leaders. I've known Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, and Stéphane Dion the longest, having sat with all three in Parliament. Jack Layton and Elizabeth May I know only peripherally, but have followed their utterances and activities carefully since they assumed the leadership of their parties. Here is my personal assessment of their capacities for strong economic leadership.

Gilles Duceppe: Hopeless. He has a single-minded dedication to Quebec seceding from Canada - something that would be economically disastrous, especially now - and gets full marks for dedication to his cause. But real-world economics has never been, and never will be, Mr. Duceppe's or the Bloc's strong suit.

Elizabeth May: Strong and well meaning on the environment - the raison d'être of her party. But weak, terribly weak, on the economy. In some future election, how to marry a genuine commitment to environmental conservation with the prerequisites for a strong economy may well be the No. 1 issue. But, unfortunately for Ms. May, and perhaps for Canada, not this time.

Jack Layton: When I listen to Mr. Layton, and hear him prescribing corporate tax hikes on the very day stock markets were crashing to record lows, I think of two other NDP leaders: Bob Rae and Dave Barrett. One was pleasantly sincere and the other was bombastically entertaining. But both were economic disasters for their provinces - Ontario and B.C. - following outmoded anti-business, anti-investment and anti-American policies that cost their provinces capital investment, jobs and growth for years, even after disillusioned electorates had removed them from office. Mr. Layton is cut from the same cloth.

Stéphane Dion: What can one say about Mr. Dion? Whereas Mr. Harper grew up in an accountant's household, Mr. Dion grew up in an academic's household. Whereas Mr. Harper studied economics at university (writing his master's thesis on monetary policy), Mr. Dion's degrees are in political science and sociology - adequate preparation for salon politics but not for economic crises. Whereas Mr. Harper spent his initial four years in the House as an opposition finance critic, attending finance committee meetings and addressing the major fiscal and trade issues of the time, Mr. Dion's first years in Parliament were spent on constitutional issues. Whereas his concern about the environment may be sincere, the mismatched handling of environment and tax policy in his Green Shift plan underscores that economics and finance are his weaknesses, not strengths.

Stephen Harper: Of course, I am prejudiced when it comes to evaluating Mr. Harper. I hired him as the first policy chief of the Reform party while he was still a graduate student in economics at the University of Calgary. Soon after, he became the principal architect of the deficit- and debt-reduction campaign that eventually forced the Chrétien government to balance the federal budget. Elected to Parliament in 1993, Mr. Harper was a primary source of analysis of the economics of secession in the runup to the sovereignty referendum, as well as providing insightful analysis of NAFTA. No major economic issue in the Western world over the past 20 years has escaped his attention. And since becoming Prime Minister, he has proven his ability to more than hold his own in economic discussions with other world leaders.

Whether you agree with the particular positions of his party or his government, when it comes to having a background, a foundation and a grasp of economic issues in all their bewildering complexity, surely it must be acknowledged that Mr. Harper surpasses any other federal party leader.
If you have a heart problem, you go to a cardiologist. If you have an abscessed tooth, you go to a dentist. If the biggest challenges facing your country are economic, who should you put in charge?
End of article

My emphasis
 
Harper: Tories will act on banks, if needed
Conservatives also offer sweetner on child care program
STEVEN CHASE AND TENILLE BONOGUORE Globe and Mail Update October 6, 2008 at 9:27 AM EDT
Article Link

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said he has plans to help Canada's banking system if the U.S.-led financial meltdown spills over heavily into this country's lending and deposit taking institutions.

But he did not elaborate on the proposal, put forward with one week left in the federal election campaign.

Mr. Harper said Canada still does not have a crisis in its financial and banking sector, but said Ottawa has secondary plans in place for the banking sector.

The main concern he said is the tightening around the world of lenders' willingness to extend credit.

It was as close as Mr. Harper has come to admitting that Canada could face financial system trouble as a result of the credit meltdown plaguing the United States.

The statements came as the Conservative leader pledged to modestly sweeten the $1,200 per year Universal Child Care Benefit during a campaign stop in Nepean, just outside Ottawa.

“The contrast is very clear. The opposition parties say they want to do more. What they want to do more of is spending and taxing,” Mr. Harper said. “Our policies are appropriate for this period.”

That is yet to be seen. The Conservatives will release their platform tomorrow, one week before the Oct. 14 vote.

While Canada is in a relatively good position compared to some other nations, Mr. Harper acknowledged the country “is not an island”.

“We can't pretend that we will escape the effects of world developments,” he said.
More on link

 
Blindspot said:
Liberal supporters find car brakes vandalized
Updated: Sun Oct. 05 2008 1:41:53 PM

Article Link

Vandals attacked a midtown Toronto neighbourhood this weekend, cutting off phone and cable lines, spray-painting property and cutting brake lines on a number of vehicles.

Although there were reports the vandalism appeared to be linked to Liberal party supporters, Staff Sgt. Glenn Gray refused to confirm a motive behind the attacks, telling CTV.ca it was too early in the investigation to comment.

However, Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett, who represents the St. Paul's riding where the vandalism occurred, posted a note on her blog condemning the "life-threatening" acts.

"I was sickened to hear today about several acts of vandalism involving cutting the brake lines on the cars of Liberal supporters in my riding," she wrote on Saturday. "This dangerous threat to our democracy must stop."

About 13 homes were hit overnight on Friday. Gray said police did not receive any reports of vandalism Saturday night. All the homes were in an area between Yonge Street and Bayview Avenue, Merton Street and Eglinton Avenue East.

Bennett said all of the homes that were hit had lawn signs showing their support for the candidate. She also said that several cars had the letter "L" scratched on them, and that her campaign's official agent was one of the people who had property vandalized.

"(He) went through a stop sign and nearly hit a bus because he did not know that his brake lines had been cut," she said in the blog.

She called on her supporters to be vigilant and to carry a camera to photograph anyone suspicious in their area. However, she also acknowledged the possible danger of putting a Liberal sign on a front lawn in plain site to vandals.

"We of course understand if supporters choose to take down their signs...But we would very much like to catch the people doing these vile acts," she said. "We cannot give into these people who are putting the lives of engaged citizens at risk."

In a news release published Sunday, she said if the attacks can't be stopped, she would work with her supporters to remove the lawn signs and ask other candidates to do the same.

Bennett said she spent Saturday phoning her supporters to warn them of the attacks.

Liberal Leader Stephane Dion also condemned the incident, saying in the news release that "there is no place for these types of dangerous and reckless intimidation tactics in our democracy."

Police will step up their nightly patrol in the area, said authorities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things appear to be getting strange(r) in Toronto. I can only see two logical explanations for these tactics and one implausible. This is a tightly contested race between Liberals and NDP. CPC won't even be a factor. With that said, it is either a) a Liberal hoax, engineered to garner sympathy or b) NDP attacks. For me 'a' is sounding about the most tangible explanation.

To suggest that this is a 'hoax' by the liberal party to garner support is idiotic at best, and at worst incredibly insulting. 
 
I personally can't see it being a 'hoax'...and if it is then someone will going to jail for it from the party. I believe that one of the Liberal support workers was almost involved in a car crash due to cut brake lines on his POMV.

That goes way beyond bickering political parties and the sympathy that it would generate is not, to my mind, commensurate with the potential damage that it almost caused.

my 2 pennies
 
Slim said:
I personally can't see it being a 'hoax'...and if it is then someone will going to jail for it from the party. I believe that one of the Liberal support workers was almost involved in a car crash due to cut brake lines on his POMV.

That goes way beyond bickering political parties and the sympathy that it would generate is not, to my mind, commensurate with the potential damage that it almost caused.

my 2 pennies

I cannot fathom this being done with the knowledge of any of the political parties, let alone being condoned by them. 
 
New polls

--------------------

Ekos notes that a small fluctuation in polling numbers can make a big diference in seat projections and offers this revised one:

BQ:  58 (+4 from the 3 Oct projection)
Cons: 130 (-22 “ )  :o
Greens:  0 (NC " )
Libs: 78 (+18 “ )  :o
NDP:  42 (+1 “ )
Other: 1 (NC)

The Ekos daily tracking data that caused those changes is:

BQ: 10% (NC from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 35% (-1 “ )
Greens: 10% (-1 “ )
Libs: 25% (+1 “)
NDP: 19% (NC)

-------------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives Drop urther

BQ: 8% (-1 from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 32% (-3 “ )
Greens: 12% (-1 “ )
Libs: 25% (+3 “ )
NDP: 21% (+1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

BQ: 10% (NC from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 34% (-1 “ )
Greens: 7% (-2 “ )
Libs: 30% (NC “ )
NDP: 19% (+1 “ )

--------------------

I would better understand the Ekos seat projection if it was based upon the Harris-Decima data; but what the polls do tell us, with some consistency, is:

• The Conservatives are in decline. They have one week of campaigning within which to stop that decline and then reverse it if they really want hat majority;

• The Greens are also in decline – doubtless the first victim of the Liberal and NDP strategic voting campaigns - but how far down can one go from zero? and

• The Liberals and NDP are engaged in a real fight for second place and the keys to Stornoway.
 
This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail amplifies the polling data just a bit, maybe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.welectiongta06/BNStory/politics/home
Tories see support growing in Toronto suburbs

JENNIFER LEWINGTON

From Monday's Globe and Mail
October 6, 2008 at 6:36 AM EDT

TORONTO — The suburban Toronto voters who swept Conservatives to power in Ontario in 1995 and sent them packing in 2003 are poised to play a familiar, influential role on federal election day next week.

In the fast-growing 905 region wrapped around the still-Liberal stronghold of Toronto, escalating voter worries about the economy and who can best manage the turbulence fuel federal Conservative hopes of electoral gains on Oct. 14.

"This could be a breakthrough election for us," said John Capobianco, a federal Tory adviser watching several tight races across the Toronto region. "905 seems to be a very positive part [of Ontario] for us."

If he is correct - and Liberal insiders concede almost certain defeat in several ridings with a half-dozen others too close to call - it will be because of voters like Newmarket resident Susan Gray.

Unaligned politically, the mother of two who runs a small business from her home says the economy is "top of mind" for her.

"This is a pretty scary time we are going into, particularly with what is happening in the United States," said Ms. Gray, still weighing her choices in Newmarket-Aurora, a sprawling suburban riding northeast of Toronto. "We need a strong leader and I don't see [liberal Leader] Stéphane Dion as that leader for us."

In 2006, Ms. Gray backed Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who edged her Tory opponent Lois Brown (running again for her party) by almost 5,000 votes. Ms. Stronach, who is not seeking re-election, was first elected as a Conservative in 2004 by a margin of barely 700 votes, having defeated Ms. Brown for the party nomination.

Even without the high-profile Ms. Stronach, the Liberals feel confident their candidate, former Aurora mayor Tim Jones, can edge out Ms. Brown.

But he cannot count for sure on former Stronach Liberal voters like Ms. Gray on election day.

"I was not a big fan of [Conservative Leader] Stephen Harper's when he came in but I think he has been doing a good job," she said.

The potential loss of women voters is of concern to Liberal strategists.

"We need to hold our female vote," said Judi Longfield, campaign director for Ontario. "It's very important because traditionally they have been with us."

Of 21 suburban ridings on the doorstep of Toronto, the Liberals held 17 seats at the start of the election campaign and the Conservatives the other four. That tally includes two ridings where incumbents crossed the floor in the last Parliament - former Conservative Garth Turner aims to hold on to his seat in Halton for the Liberals, while former Liberal Wajid Khan hopes to do the same for the Tories in Mississauga-Streetsville.

"We have seen a real migration of Liberal votes to the Conservatives," possibly enough to defeat Liberal incumbents in several ridings, including Halton, said pollster Peter Donolo of The Strategic Counsel.

Strategic Counsel's daily polling in the most contested 905 ridings shows Conservative candidates running four percentage points ahead of where they were in the 2006 election, while Liberal candidates are running 10 percentage points behind. The Conservatives are at 43 per cent; the Liberals at 30 per cent, the NDP at 19 per cent and the Greens at 7 per cent.

Because the polling samples are small, the margins of error are large: 6.6 per cent. But there have been clear trend lines since the campaign began showing the Conservative share of the vote slowly increasing while the Liberal share slowly declines - except for a small Conservative dip in the last few days.

Political analysts have never doubted the Conservatives would do well in 905, whose residents match to a T the party's target voters: either well-off with lots of children or on the edge of economically struggling with lots of children. The question is whether the Tories can do well enough in 905 and the neighbouring 519 area-code region to compensate for loss of support in Quebec.

With a report from Michael Valpy

The 905 belt was the core of Mike Harris’ success 1995 and ’99.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
New polls

--------------------

Ekos notes that a small fluctuation in polling numbers can make a big diference in seat projections and offers this revised one:

BQ:  58 (+4 from the 3 Oct projection)
Cons: 130 (-22 “ )  :o
Greens:  0 (NC " )
Libs: 78 (+18 “ )  :o
NDP:  42 (+1 “ )
Other: 1 (NC)

The Ekos daily tracking data that caused those changes is:

BQ: 10% (NC from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 35% (-1 “ )
Greens: 10% (-1 “ )
Libs: 25% (+1 “)
NDP: 19% (NC)

-------------------------

Harris-Decima says:

Conservatives Drop urther

BQ: 8% (-1 from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 32% (-3 “ )
Greens: 12% (-1 “ )
Libs: 25% (+3 “ )
NDP: 21% (+1 “ )

--------------------

Nanos says:

BQ: 10% (NC from the 5 Oct report)
Cons: 34% (-1 “ )
Greens: 7% (-2 “ )
Libs: 30% (NC “ )
NDP: 19% (+1 “ )

--------------------

I would better understand the Ekos seat projection if it was based upon the Harris-Decima data; but what the polls do tell us, with some consistency, is:

• The Conservatives are in decline. They have one week of campaigning within which to stop that decline and then reverse it if they really want hat majority;

• The Greens are also in decline – doubtless the first victim of the Liberal and NDP strategic voting campaigns - but how far down can one go from zero? and

• The Liberals and NDP are engaged in a real fight for second place and the keys to Stornoway.

take into account they are probably losing support in ridings that never really vote for them anyways
 
Proud_Newfoundlander said:
take into account they are probably losing support in ridings that never really vote for them anyways

Polls always kill me.

Besides your point above - there's always the fact that one actually has to get off the couch, go to the polling station, and cast their vote for any of the parties rather than just answer the phone for a pollster.

We'll soon be hearing of all the buses, vans etc being laid on by the parties to get their "faithful" transported to the booths on the 14th.

Who wants to bet what the the numbers will be for the percentage of eligible voters who actually get out and do their civic duty? I'm wagering it's short of the 65% turn out of 2006. There are a great many "vocal" Canadians who turn apathetic of election day.
 
Well...

I'm proud to say that I have voted today at one of the advance voting stations set up near home.
:cdn:
 
Slim said:
Well...

I'm proud to say that I have voted today at one of the advance voting stations set up near home.
:cdn:

Hehehe. I voted last week at the advance poll here on base. I wanted to write my own name in. >:D - then at least I could say honestly "in a Federal Election someone voted for me", but hell - figured then they'd have my name ... and what with actually running for federal office being an offense for serving members - I disregarded the option that my red hair was striving for. After a mere 2 minutes of pondering "my name or his" - I wrote in his - figured it would be better spent that way.  ;)
 
This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, could signal a big problem for the Liberals – at least a very unwelcome distraction from a campaign that is, finally, starting to work as planned:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.welectionmartin07/BNStory/Front
Leak of Martin memoirs sends Liberals scrambling

DANIEL LEBLANC

From Monday's Globe and Mail
October 6, 2008 at 9:55 PM EDT

OTTAWA — The Liberals scrambled to contain the fallout of Paul Martin's scathing autobiography yesterday, fearing their election campaign could be derailed by accusations that Jean Chrétien deliberately undermined the party before his 2003 retirement.

Entitled Hell or High Water, the book is a first-hand account of Mr. Martin's problem-filled stint as prime minister, and will revisit more than a decade of Martin-Chrétien infighting when it is officially released at the end of the month.

Mr. Martin gives much of the blame for the short life of his government to Mr. Chrétien, saying his predecessor is responsible for the sponsorship scandal's political fallout and the Liberal Party's subsequent funding woes.

The book's content was revealed in a Montreal newspaper Monday, and Liberal officials quickly clamped down on any public statement for fear of turning the attention away from their campaign for the Oct. 14 election.

Prominent members of the Martin and the Chrétien teams refused to comment, and a Liberal strategist said the word has been sent out to “all troops to focus on the important task at hand.”

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion also refused to discuss Mr. Martin's assertion that the party is struggling to raise money because of rules Mr. Chrétien enacted.

“All Liberals are united,” Mr. Dion said at a campaign stop in British Columbia. “We're more united than ever.”

In his book, Mr. Martin said he was hobbled when he became prime minister in late 2003 because he had to deal with Auditor-General Sheila Fraser's damaging report on the sponsorship scandal.

“I was furious with Mr. Chrétien, who left this time-bomb behind him,” Mr. Martin said in an excerpt published in Le Devoir.

“Either because he was worried about his legacy being tarred by the sponsorship scandal, or because of rancour against me – only he can answer that question – he delayed the publication of the Auditor-General's report until I replaced him at 24 Sussex Dr.,” Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Martin said the ensuing crisis, fuelled by evidence of a kickback scheme involving senior Liberal organizers, doomed his government.

“We ended up losing the communications battle on the sponsorship question. Honestly, I don't know if it could have been won,” he said.

Mr. Martin added that he still cannot understand why Mr. Chrétien decided to prohibit donations of more than $5,000 to political parties. The Liberal Party had always relied on large corporate donations, while the Conservative Party drew more of its funds from a vast database of small donors.

“The law's debilitating effects on the [liberal] Party were gradual; they were only fully felt after I was replaced by Mr. Dion. He is the one, to my regret, who suffered most from a law that was intended to harm me,” Mr. Martin said.

Mr. Martin also does not mince words when it comes to former RCMP commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, saying the announcement of a criminal probe into the matter of income trusts was the key moment of the 2005-2006 campaign.

“The only question is whether his action can be explained by ineptness or whether it was a premeditated malicious act. In my view, no one can be that inept,” said Mr. Martin.

In his book, Mr. Martin also criticized the Chrétien government's 1999 Clarity Act, which established the conditions in which Ottawa would negotiate a province's secession. Mr. Martin said the law, which Mr. Dion oversaw, was unnecessary in light of a previous Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. Martin wrote the book in English, and it was translated into French over the summer. Le Devoir obtained French-language proofs and printed excerpts Monday. Sources confirmed the veracity of the excerpts, which, for this article, have been translated back to English, and therefore might differ from the final version.

Mr. Martin's former director of communications, Scott Reid, said the former prime minister did not approve the early release.

“Certainly for now, my energies are wholly committed to helping Mr. Dion win this increasingly close election campaign. Mr. Martin is doing likewise, campaigning across the country to help Liberals win their ridings,” Mr. Reid said.
Hell or High Water is a reference to a budget speech in 1995, in which Mr. Martin promised to bring down the federal deficit.

The book is not the first salvo in the long episode of Liberal infighting. In his autobiography released last year, Mr. Chrétien said that, unlike Mr. Martin, he never would have called a public inquiry into the sponsorship scandal. Mr. Chrétien added that he had been willing to stay in office to accept Ms. Fraser's report, but that Mr. Martin did not take him up on the offer.

With a report from Bill Curry

The Chrétien/Martin civil-war still rages, but it’s not, really, a Chrétien/Martin war, it is much older: it is, at least, a Trudeau/Turner civil-war.

Back around 1967 John Turner made his first run for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada but it was too soon and Pierre Trudeau was too popular and too French and the Party has a long established tradition (policy) of alternating English and French speaking leaders.* He served in both Mike Pearson’s and Pierre Trudeau’s cabinet – in very senior appointments (Justice and Finance) in the Trudeau government – but his disagreements with Trudeau’s political philosophy (far to the left, farther left than planned by the Kingston Conference (1960)) and policies were deep and bitter and he resigned from cabinet and politics in 1975.

The Trudeau/Turner wars continued in the 1984 Liberal leadership convention when Turner defeated Trudeau acolyte Jean Chrétien. But it was a pyrrhic victory, Liberals, dutifully, kept to the alternating rule but the Trudeauites gave fair warning to Turner than he would not have their support when, at the end of the process, then Liberal Party President (and former Trudeau minister) Iona Campagnolo said of Chrétien that  he was “second on the ballot, but first in our hearts.” It was a signal to all Liberals that Turner and his conservative policies were damaged goods.

In 1990 Chrétien won the Liberal Party leadership, defeating the ‘ideological heir’ to St Laurent, Pearson and Turner: Paul Martin.

And so it goes, on and on, and on ... until, I suppose, Pierre Trudeau haunts the Liberals no more.†


--------------------
* Blake (1880), Laurier (1887), King (1919), St Laurent (1948), Pearson (1958), Trudeau (1968), Turner (1984), Chrétien (1990), Martin (2003) and Dion (2006) – interim leaders (McKenzie in 1919 and Graham in 2006) don’t count
† See: http://www.canadiancontent.net/people/politics/Pierre-Trudeau.html - 2nd paragraph

 
Rather curious, what sides do Mr Dion, Bob Rae and Micheal Ignattief fit in the Liberal "civil war"

As for Mr Martin's Memoirs, I expect to see the CPC and the NDP making a lot of hay over this, the CPC to stop the bleeding and the NDP to eat the Liberal's lunch and put Smilin' (Taliban) Jack in as Leader of the Opposition.
 
Interesting heading on National Citizens Coalition's email's header (click on picture to enlarge it and activate it)
 
Thucydides said:
Rather curious, what sides do Mr Dion, Bob Rae and Micheal Ignattief fit in the Liberal "civil war"
...


Dion and Rae are, I think, squarely in the Trudeau/Chrétien camp – both by inclination and experience/loyalty.

Ignatieff appears to be a more nuanced person – even after he tosses aside his principles and worships at the alter of Trudeaumania.

Consider this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081006.wcoadams07/BNStory/politics/home
How conservative are Canadians?

MICHAEL ADAMS

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
October 7, 2008 at 1:14 AM EDT

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his team have expressed the desire to move Canada in an incrementally more conservative direction through successive Conservative governments. Although opinions and expectations differ on where exactly Mr. Harper is headed, in anticipating scenarios for the future it's valuable to consider the political orientations of the country he leads today. As of 2008, how conservative are Canadians - and where might they be nudged to the right?

This discussion cannot get far without at least a brief discussion of what we mean by conservatism. There are, of course, fiscal and social strains of conservatism, and adherents of these two strains do not always sit cozily together under a single political tent. Americans have recently been wrestling with their own definitions of conservatism, with a President who sees "liberal" as a dirty word but has presided over an unprecedented government spending blitz.

For the Harper government's purposes, it seems safe to say that conservatism consists, on the fiscal side, in diminishing the size of government and cutting taxes and, on the social side, in taking some steps to promote what it sees as traditionalism and propriety. These latter steps have been halting thus far - like the inconsequential reopening of the same-sex marriage debate in 2006, and efforts to withhold public funds from artists whose work the government deems inappropriate.

Where do Canadians stand on this kind of conservatism? Polling and behavioural data show Canadians to be prudent in their fiscal mindset when it comes to both personal finances and the federal books. Canadians have no interest in shrinking government until, in the words of the American anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, it can be drowned in the bathtub. But nor do they have much taste for profligacy and waste. Mr. Harper's emphasis on restrained spending and a rolling assessment of all federal programs' efficacy and efficiency is likely to appeal to Canadians' fiscal caution, a small-c conservative orientation that is one of this society's most abiding characteristics.

Social and cultural issues are another matter. Public opinion and values research data reveal a population that is socially liberal: secular, tolerant of differences, profoundly committed to social equality. Canadians are proud of the equality measures that have been advanced by their courts and governments in recent decades; in this area, the dominant orientation is liberal. Canadians, moreover, have relatively little appetite for culture wars. So-called ordinary Canadians demonstrated this aversion recently when they declined an invitation to engage in some angry resentment of greedy, effete big-city artists. It isn't clear that Mr. Harper's tactic of attacking artists as separate from real Canadians succeeded in energizing the Conservatives' small-town base, but it is clear that it backfired in Quebec.

Finally, although Canadians believe in the power of markets to advance a range of worthwhile objectives, they display strong faith in government intervention in areas where they believe fundamental issues of fairness are at stake - and they are willing to pay for it. Nine in 10 Canadians believe that social spending should either be maintained at its current level (41 per cent) or increased (50 per cent). Easy to say, but what about when these opinions hit us in the wallet? It is true that a slim majority (55 per cent) believe their tax burden is too high. But the rest believe current tax levels are about right, or, in a few cases, 3 per cent, that taxes should be increased.

Shaving points off the GST and reducing the diesel tax will probably generate warm feelings toward Mr. Harper among Canadians who are feeling hard-pressed, and broader reductions may be welcome in some quarters. But sweeping tax cuts and the drastic shrinking of government are not likely to be the keys to a lasting majority. Despite Canadians' fiscal prudence, they like having a government with plenty of capacity to intervene in areas such as health care, the environment and, these days, potentially salvaging the economy and the jobs and savings of average citizens.

Canadians don't want bloated government, but they do want leadership that is sufficiently well resourced to respond in areas where they believe core values or urgent social and economic imperatives are at stake.

On the whole, then, when it comes to representing conservative principles in a way Canadians are likely to find palatable, Mr. Harper has done an excellent job during this campaign. He has emphasized fiscal prudence and stability, announced new youth crime measures but steered clear of more volatile social issues like abortion, and has proposed tax measures - like the diesel tax cut - that are simple and highly visible to the general public, but not too radical. In other words, finding Canadian attitudes as they are, Mr. Harper has been able to navigate them with considerable savvy in adapting his party's principles to the reality of Canadian public opinion and values.

As to moving those attitudes in a direction he and his caucus might find more in keeping with their own - the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged the gulf between his team and the public at large - that is a much larger challenge. Social change tends to come as a result of broad economic and historical forces, not at the behest of political strategists.

Still, if recent trends in the U.S. and European economies continue, broad economic and historical forces may be coming our way - forces that may put a new premium on compassionate government. Predicting whose political fortunes those forces will ultimately favour is miles beyond any pollster's margin of error.

Michael Adams is president of the Environics group of companies and author of Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian Pluralism

I think Adams is right and I’m guessing that Michael Ignatieff (like most of us here) falls rather neatly under the centre of his (Adam's) bell curve:

• We are, by and large, fiscal conservatives – we expect the government of the day to manage the economy (our money, after all) in a prudent manner – a large political plus for Stephen Harper. I'm guessing that, despite his public comments, Ignatieff falls into this camp;

• Equally by and large, but to a lesser degree, we are social liberals – we tend to ‘live and let live’ even when our own personal, private values are offended by the actions of others – a moderate political minus for Harper because many Canadians suspect that he is a closet social conservative. I'm certain this (social liberal) view describes Ignatieff; and

• Many, but by no means most of us are wary of the power of markets – many agree that the state can use the market to promote equality but at least as many believe that equality can only be advanced by lawful individual actions – a political wash, I think: no advantage for anyone. I'm not sure where Ignatieff sits on this but my guess would be that he tends to the individualistic point of view.

Ignatieff used to be a fiscal black hole – he had no discernable interest in economics, nor did he display any strong (published) opinion on those issues. Until, that is, he ran for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership when he proposed to campaign “on the left” in order to regain power. This appeared to many, including many Liberals, to be a cynical attempt to join the Trudeaumania wing of the Party where, many Liberals felt, he did not belong because of his recent philosophical musings on the use of American power.

For me, the most significant and illuminating thing about Ignatieff is his biography of Isaiah Berlin. I do not claim to have read everything Ignatieff has written, not even most of it, but I have read some and Isaiah Berlin is an outstanding piece of work and, again and again, as is so often the case in really first rate biographies, the author’s (Ignatieff’s) views are clear and, like his subject, he makes a resounding defence of classical liberal values. Those values are decidedly a odds with almost everything for which Trudeau stood. Ignatieffwas not an anti-Trudeau, he was, like most classical liberals about 90° (rather than 180°) out of phase with him (Trudeau).

Thus, I’m guessing that Ignatieff is in the St Laurent/Turner/Martin camp – a traditional Liberal, in other words, with some quite liberal values.


 
Military spending
Where the parties stand on the big-ticket items
Last Updated: Monday, October 6, 2008
Article Link

We are involved in a war in Afghanistan, and it's not cheap. But by most accounts, we have a well-equipped military in the war zone, after defence spending almost doubled in 10 years.

The days of an under-equipped Canadian military seem over, but they came with a price: the annual budget for the military in 2008 is slightly more than $18 billion, up from slightly more than $9.92 billion in 1997-98 (with the actual expenditure turning out to be $10.12 billion). The cost of the mission in Afghanistan up to 2011 should be released shortly, and there are many numbers out there — all guesses so far — ranging from $4 billion to $22 billion.

Equipping the Afghanistan mission has moved along fairly smoothly (including purchasing high-tech unmanned aerial vehicles and tanks), but in other areas of the military, there have been some big blips, particularly when it comes to procuring helicopters as well as new Arctic patrol vessels and search and rescue ships, all of which are outstanding.

Late in the summer, for example, the Conservatives announced that the $340-million plan to purchase patrol vessels for the coast guard was put on hold "because the bid prices exceeded the anticipated cost," according to Public Works. As well, a $2.9-billion plan to build two supply ships was also put on hold.

When the election campaign turns to defence, much of the focus has been on what our role is in Afghanistan (where we have been since 2002) and what's going to happen after 2011, when our military operations there are supposed to cease.

But military spending itself is an important and obvious issue when looking at how governments spend and budget, especially so when one considers the dozens of communities that rely on this type of spending, either because a base is in the community or a local industry helps supply the Defence Department.

The recent problems in the world economy may make some military supporters wonder if the money earmarked for the Armed Forces is safe, whether the budget is an easy target for cuts, as it once was. That is up in the air in these uncertain times.

An upward trend
Military spending in Canada is clearly on an upward trend.

"Since Sept. 11, 2001, Canada's military spending has increased by 27 per cent, and after the next two years of planned increases, will be 37 per cent higher than 2000-01," according to a 2007 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The group said: "Canada is the 13th highest military spender in the world this year, up from 16th. Within the 26-member NATO alliance, Canada has moved from 7th to 6th highest military spender, dollar for dollar."

With that in mind, we take a look at where the parties stand on defence spending and plans for the future.

Conservatives

The Conservatives have painted themselves as friends of the military and the numbers appear to support that.

They have promised a budget boost of $12 billion over 20 years beginning in 2011-12 and have produced a document titled Canada First that addresses everything from military equipment needs and Arctic sovereignty to border defence. They have also promised to boost capital spending by between $45 billion and $50 billion.

Among the big-ticket items: $250 billion over the 20-year period on personnel, with the military's numbers increasing to 70,000 regular members and 30,000 reserve members (currently, there are 62,000 regular members and 25,000 reservists.); $140 billion on training and maintenance of equipment and $40 billion on military buildings and infrastructure. As part of that, CFB Trenton in Ontario will get a $500-million facelift.
More on link
 
And in his government's first defence procurement Prime Minister Layton announced the proposed acquisition of 33 million flags, white, various sizes, Canadians for the use of.

Seriously, I find it curious that defending Canada is the last of his 3 defence priorities.
 
Here is the Conservative Party’s platform.

This, from pages 29 and 30, is what Harper has to say about national defence - generally, Afghanistan - in particular, and veterans:

--------------------​

Building on the Canada First Defence Strategy


A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue rebuilding the Canadian Forces and providing the equipment that our Navy, Army and Air Force require. We are committed to a Canada First Defence Strategy that will provide predictable growth for Canada's defence budget, increase the size of our forces to 70,000 regular and 30,000 reserves. The Strategy will also invest $45 to $50 billion over the next 20 years in the purchase of major equipment, including replacements for our destroyers and frigates, maritime patrol, search and rescue, fighter aircraft and land vehicle fleets.

We will ensure that we acquire the ships, aircraft, vehicles and other equipment our Forces need in a manner that ensures our troops have the best possible equipment and that taxpayers' dollars are prudently spent. A re-elected Conservative Government will leverage these dramatic increases in defence procurement to ensure that new high technology jobs are created in Canada through a combination of buying Canadian-made defence equipment and securing high-value industrial benefits when equipment is purchased abroad.

Supporting Canada's Mission in Afghanistan

A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue to support Canada's military and development mission in Afghanistan and will respect the terms of the Parliamentary resolution passed in March, 2008. Under this resolution, Canada's military mission in Kandahar will continue until July, 2011 now that that NATO and allied forces have agreed to provide additional troops and resources in Kandahar.

Canada's military mission in Afghanistan will cease by the end of 2011.

Supporting Canada's Veterans

A re-elected Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will continue to improve the lives of Canada's veterans. We will:

• Restore Veterans Allowances for veterans living in Canada for more than 10 years who fought for Commonwealth or Allied Forces during World War II or the Korean War.

• Increase funeral and burial assistance rates for veterans to bring the rates for veterans in line with those of active duty Canadian Forces and RCMP officers.

--------------------​


That’s pretty much it: 335± words, including titles.

 
Back
Top