Liberals in Canada Crazy like a fox?

Post Reply New Topic

Ever since 2006 the Official Opposition in Canada - the centrist Liberal Party of Canada - has seemed pretty blundering. They fail to take on the government, collapse when they realize traditional corproate donors aren't feeding their trough, fail to capitalize on Conservative scandal, and fail to appeal to the many progressive segments of the Canadian population - they fake left befor swinging right again.

The Liberal Party was collapsing - in 2008 the leftwing social democratic NDP outfundraised them. They Liberals have installed a blue Liberal who has spent most of his life outside Canada - the Harvard professor Michael Ignatieff. Ignatieff has defended the Iraq War and torture - removing any high ground the Liberals could claim when pointing out how disasterou Harper's judgment would have been at the time of the Iraq War.

I couldn't help but think the Liberal Party had gone over the hill. But is their method in their madness? After all, the Canadian Housing market bubble has yet to burst, Canada's credit is still very easy to secure and has yet to hit a crunch, and some view the Oil Sands in Alberta as a bubble also waiting to explode. Are the Liberals waiting for an economic impulsion done on Conservative watch to start heavy hitting?

Since MacDonald, every Conservative government in this country has been good for two elections. Bennet and Clark failed to get their second, and Dief managed a pretty dismal squeaker for a third, but generally speaking, the rule holds.

So when the Liberals were consigned to the Speaker's left, it should have been clear to everyone in the strategy room that the Conservatives were going to have a few years.

In that situation, why waste your "A" game? If Dion had started laying out the new Red Book in 2006, it would have been so much wasted ink. Voters and media would have forgotten it, Harper would still have won in 2008, and there would have been nothing to show for it.

But now the electorate is increasingly less forgiving of the government. The census issue has been decidedly unfavourable to them. Ontario is clearly disenchanted, and the NDP are starting to pin the HST on the Conservatives in BC (which would be the kiss of death, electorally).

I think you will start to see Peter Donolo start pulling the levers this Autumn.

I expect the Red Book to go to the presses in November or December, and the Government to fall in March on the Budget. (Unless there is a real sweetener for the Bloc, in which case look for the Conservative party to fracture like it's 1993 all over again).

If Flaherty doesn't have good news in Budget '11 (and let's face it, he has no money to work with), I have every expectation of an election and a change in government in 8 to 9 months time.

These things are unlikely to happen to do banking mechanisms that differ from that of, say, America.

Interesting topic though. I think they are just blundering and it isnt very healthy for Canadian politics.

While your statement may be factual, it doesnt really offer any perspective. It could be completely true in a country where the other party alternated with only one term. We know this isnt the case, but...

for example, several times(such as WWI) the conservative party folded and formed different parties. At that time they formed the Unionist Party with pro war liberals. So you are comparing the Liberals to 3-4 other parties.

Now what you probably mean are the progressive conservatives, and they did indeed win three elections in a row. In 1957, 1958 and 1962. So now your statement isn't just irrelevant, its nonfactual.


Either it holds or its not a rule. You are saying bridges never fall down but sometimes they do. Nonsensical. Fine equivocation though.


Consigned? Were they somehow herded there by forces irresistible? Or did they plot their own strategy?



Riiight. Someone in some smoky backroom said "Lets screw around for a few years. The magic levers arent due for a few years." Because that really sounds like regular political behavior. After all, everyone knows politicians are not driven by ambition, but by a casual indifference to power and governance.



Remains to be seen. I'm betting the census issue is less of a bother to people than the remembrance of the sponsorship scandal among other things.

Hooray. The delivery of the magical levers at last! Are they kinda like a sword in a stone, where only a worthy king can pull them?



Who knows? Previous Red Books havent exactly resonated with the general public. But maybe Peter Donolo proclaimed "No best sellers! Yet. Wait for 2010 and the red levers!" Then he pumped his arm.



Sure, so some money for the Liberals is arriving with the magic red levers? And only the anointed ones can make use of it? People arent stupid. Magic government money comes from one place: Tax Payers. It doesnt matter who is steering the ship of state. There may well be an election due to the budget, but the winner of that will be decided on other issues. As usual. Or maybe Donolo and Iggy will chickenshit it again. They have that precedence thing happening.

But regardless, whoever picks up the reins will be just as broke as the other guy. By the way, did the liberals work their war chest out of the red yet? Can they afford to run an election?

Fuzzy, I find your optimism on Canadian banks very naive. Canada has one of the higest debt to income rations in the G20.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le1537623/

If interest rates are raised, that could spell disasters for many credit-dependent Canadians. The Banks cannot prevent the fiasco falling wages and an increasingly debt-based economy has caused overnight.

My first inclination is that whether Harper or an ultrablue Liberal Party forms next government, Canada will be in for a downward spiral. Raising interest rates will kill many credit-dependent Canadians and the government will buy into the "we need to reduce the national deficit during this reccession" mantra and bring in austerity measures that'll make the government deficit worse. Consumer debt and government deficit-reduction fetishism will severely wound Canada in the upcomming years.

It is precisely this habit of the Canadian political right to fracture and re establish itself that contributes to this. The right tends to hold power only so long as they can cobble together a coalition of the un-Liberal. Typically, that lifespan is anywhere from 5 to 9 years. The Progressives, the Reform Party and the Bloc Québecois are all examples of the failure of the right to create a single, cohesive party.



I like how you conveniently failed to quote me when I said:



Nice of you to rely on selective quotation to suggest a falsity.



It's a rule, not a Law. There are exceptions, as there are in almost every human endeavour. (That's why statistics have confidence intervals!) It's also worth noting that Diefenbaker only managed to stay in power for 6 years, so his three elections are an outlier, in any event.



They were herded there by that most irresistible of political forces: the electorate.

Every administration falls, in time. It is a healthy aspect of our political culture, and offers the opportunity for renewal. The same will happen to the Conservatives, then to the Liberals again.



Politics is the art of the practical. You don't spend money when you know you can't win. Only a moron throws good money after bad. The same rule applies to political capital. Notice how the Opposition only seriously challenged the government when the government threatened party funding. Were it not for that foolish move on the Prime Minister's part, the prorogation of 2009 might not have been necessary.

The Opposition was moved to suggest a coalition because that was the only weapon in their arsenal to face off against a proposal of the Government that was intolerable. As for the rest of the Governments actions, Liberals understand that a Government has the right to govern, and a trip to the polls should be motivated by either legal requirement to consult the electorate, or a willingness on the part of the electorate to be consulted.

Those who try to bring down a minority government on Day 1 are often punished.



That's a fair bet. I don't think that you are correct, but I won't dispute your logic.

From my perspective, Adscam is only playing to two audiences right now: dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who would never vote Liberal, and Québeckers, who almost invariably vote in the best interests of the Province. The voters that really count are the swing voters in Ontario. Interestingly neither Québeckers nor Ontarians are flocking to the Conservatives.



Facetiousness is all you have left to argue with?



I seem to remember quite a bit of resonance in 1993. And 1997. And 2000. I will grant you that 2004 was a bit of a surprise win, but that is hardly remarkable for an administration that was looking for its fourth, consecutive win.



I don't disagree that the election will not be fought on the budget. The only election in my lifetime (since 1967) that has truly been fought on an issue was 1988. Canadian voters, by and large, do not mark their ballots on issues. Issues may colour their feelings about a leader, but at the end of the day, the decision is, "Who do I want to be Prime Minister?" (or just as often, "Who don't I want to be Prime Minister?"

The Liberals are in the black. As the conditions for an election start to develop, so too will their fundraising. (They won't force an election if people aren't angry at the PM and the government, and when people are angry at the PM and the government, they will start to provide greater financial support the opposition parties).

Ah! I took you to mean an over extension of real estate debt. Bad mortgages. That isnt likely, but we are not immune to the event you have put forward.



Agreed, downward spiral seems likely.

Deficit issue? Maybe. Alberta timed it just right. That was definitely a boon to our fortunes. We went hell bent for leather and got it over with quick. That probably helped. A prolonged reduction would be bad.

Hmm. I really thought I included your comment on 3rd term dief. It directly pertained to my point. Sorry Visa.

There havent been enough terms to justify that shaky rule anyway. And you deliberately chopped off several decades of Macdonald to make it fit. Bad form Peter.

That cons would be willing to reformulate is indicative of flexibility. Only in politics is that seen to be a bad thing. It shouldnt.

And many other years, but we were not talking about that. We (and it was broached by you) were discussing the dion/iggy era and why they p**** footed around. Dragging Chretien and Martin in doesnt count. It was about lack of Liberal aggression in attacking the standing government.

No, elections are not decided on budgets, but governments are often collapsed on them, and the succeeding government starts with the same basic funds. Liberals taking over are not going to cause any miracles.

Pertaining the alleged king maker role of Ontario:

You have it wrong. The west and Quebec count more than Ontario does. Western Canada has 10.4 million people, and Quebec has 7.9 million. That comes to 18.3 million out of 33.7 or about 54% of Canada's population(30 and 24% respectively). Both those regions are going to vote heavily for their preferred parties (ie: not the Liberals). Rather than being king makers, Ontario is its own worst enemy because several million mostly rural Ontarians are going to vote conservative. They always do.

13 million Ontarians by the way. Or about 40% of the population.

Thus, no matter who wins, it will be a minority Liberal government, another minority Conservative government(breaking your 'rule' for the third time), or distantly possible, a slight majority government(or either type). But here is the kicker: Ontario cant do that alone. It is caught between a rock and a hard place, fighting battles on two fronts as well as internal dissidents.

Get used to it. Minority governments are the future.

I'm from Quebec, we have the choice between Left and Radical Left.

SO many people actually vote for the Bloc Quebecois (separatist, radical, and tolerant only to the french).

I hear Alberta is the most conservative, and they are doing the best financially. Taxes are also much lower.

It doesn't take brilliance to sustain an economy when you're sitting on top of an oil well. Especially if the developed world is still hooked on oil for transporation and supplies are running out worldwide.

Alberta wouldn't be much better off than Manitoba (in fact, it would probably be worse off) were it not for petroleum deposits.

If Quebec were sitting on oil, a third would be ignored for environmental reasons, another third would be inaccessible sue to being on Indian reserves and the revenue from the remaining third would help fund the grossly overpaid government workers and union jobs.

No economic excuse in my mind should let Quebec take twice as much income taxes from me as another province in the same country. I mean, in BC I wouldn't mind because at least it's beautiful, but on top of that we have 8 months of winter, I mean come on. I can move down south a bit and have the same life with more money, or move west to BC and have a more enjoyable life with the same money.

/rant

Can't comment on Manitoba, never been. But last I checked people weren't moving there in huge numbers so it can't be too good their either.

So the Province would have some beauty even after the oil addiction of the West petered out? That's true foresight.



Actually, it would be much more likely a revenue sharing and "local employees first" deal would be worked out with the local First Nation.



You do know that a lot of oil sands jobs in Alberta are unionized, right?



Not even having one of the oldest populations in North America?



Manitoba is still a province that receives equalization payments, so it still a "have-not" province. But, on the plus side, it has one of the higher rates of employment, has the greatest rate of job growth in this recession, and has maintained a rather prudent countercyclical fiscal policy that is serving the province well. I don't think it will be a powerhouse unless it starts selling massive amounts of hydroelectricity and water to the Americans.

Correct. The same could be said of Ontario in regards to its steel and automotive industry.

Yes, I think the lack of a sales tax here has a great effect on our economy. We get a lot of shoppers from BC and Saskatchewan.

I see you are relatively new here at WP. Welcome.

In Alberta we often get miss-tarred as religious fundamentalists. More properly Albertans(and western Canadians in general) tend to be fiscal conservatives, but not of the sort that you see in the American Tea Party. I dont think any significant group of Canadians advocates the dismissal of subsidized health care and such things.

For example, only 2% of Albertans are baptists, and only a portion of that would be the fire and brimstone sort more common to the States. With 23% of Albertans having no religion, and 25% being nominally catholic, you have almost half the population not engaged in social groups that favour biblical literalism. Of that other 1/2 you have to assume that most of them are not particularly hell bent on spreading their various creeds either. For example, 13% are of non white ethnicities, primarily being Chinese and North American Indian. These too do not beat people with bibles.

Most Canadians are largely supportive of a secular society. Even the religious ones.

That has an interesting effect on our politics because our political divides shift around more than American ones. When money is tight people tend to favor the reduction of taxes and they will vote that way. Which, I think, is what we are seeing right now.

The Liberals seem willing to shuffle around the centre spectrum, and as visagrunt said, the Conservative parties routinely collapse and reinvent. So in effect, you get a lot of people who would be liberals in the states voting conservative in Canada. It isnt correct to call a Canadian Conservative the same as an American Conservative. Not by a long shot.

It could - which explains why loses in the automotive manufacturing sector are crippling Ontario (due to the recession and Dutch Disease).

Dutch elm disease?

I just cannot see you being bigoted against netherlanders!

Most of the provinces have something going for them. We should have at least mortally wounded the federal debt while things were nice. We currently have a competitive advantage against many other countries because Chretien and Martins smart law against over-leveraged debt. We could be even more of a powerhouse.