Canadian Election October 14, 2008

[Andrew]

Budget deficit in 2009-10, Flaherty confirms

Gee, during a live debate with other PM candidates in October Harper said there would not be a deficit. Then after they won Flaherty said there would not be a deficit.

Now there is a deficit. Thanks for lying to us.

First deficit in like 15 years.

I remember the former PM of Ontario if there was one thing he would have done different during the 1990s recession, it would be that he would not have tried to spend their way out of it, as it did not work and the population now has more debt.

[nemafakei]

The problem with spending as a cure-all is that while Keynes proved that by the laws of capitalism it ought to work (so long as the state invests in jobs), the theory as it's practised doesn't distinguish between employing people to build a school and employing them to knock one down. 'Stimulus' programmes, phoney job-creation, investment incentives and other types of indiscriminate spending may make things look better by some measures, but it doesn't actually increase the actual value of the economy. Real social spending, on the other hand, is an investment which pays off, especially in a time of need.

[Egeides]

The problem with spending as a cure-all is that while Keynes proved that by the laws of capitalism it ought to work (so long as the state invests in jobs), the theory as it's practised doesn't distinguish between employing people to build a school and employing them to knock one down.

That's an interesting way of puting things. What do you propose in this case? How do those using power and leadership decide of what ends up being built? (do I remember right that you have a Social-ist inclination? This here seems to propose some hierarchical leadership)

[Sneakgab]

''it ought to work''

In doing what exactly?

One would suspect that when the solution to any problem involves paying (ie: giving them resources, in a country with a ''normal'' economy) people to knock down schools and other useful facilities, it is time to re-examine the logic circuitry.

Then again, I don't know much about economics.

[nemafakei]

"In doing what exactly?"

Market stability, economic 'growth'.

But as I'm saying, that's not an argument for Keynesian capitalism, it's an argument against capitalism. It's false growth.

"What do you propose in this case? How do those using power and leadership decide of what ends up being built? (do I remember right that you have a Social-ist inclination? This here seems to propose some hierarchical leadership)"

You correctly identify me as a socialist with a distaste for hierarchy.

Thus, what I propose is that we take control of our workplaces and make the economy ours, run from the ground up.

As for the people with state power, I suggest they invest in publicly-run infrastructure, especially health, education, and transport. I suggest they start listening to the people working in those industries, I suggest they start running them for the public benefit, not as businesses or incubated projects to be sold off as soon as they can get away with it. In fact, it would be good if they were to make them a lot more democratic as well - and there are a few models that could be adopted for this.

[Andrew]

So yesterday Stephen Harper appointed 18 Senators. He appointed more senators in one day than any Prime Minister has in their career.

He appointed all conservatives who are opposed to coalition, and are in favour of senator reforms. They only have 8 year terms instead of lifetime terms, with salary of ~$130,000.

To put into perspective, in a single day Harper appointed more senators in a day than Jean Chretien did during 1993-2003 as Prime Minister.

Harper doesn't even have a government. He prorogued parliament. Yet he still gets to appoint senators even though he might not be Prime Minister in 1 month.

[Tatar Khan]

I really don't get the whole problem. Harper won the election and now the sorry losers are trying to find any way to kick him out. Really was his previous term so bad.

[Edric O]

He did not win the election. He got more seats than any other single party, but he did not get a majority of seats. Winning the largest minority of any single party is not "winning the election."

[Andrew]

Harper was ok the last term, but he kept screwing things up.

He cut arts funding. I'm not going to debate whether it was good or bad, but it definitely got bad rep from the media. Harper inherited large budget surpluses, and then he went on a spending spree and saying deficits would not occur, even though everyone knew they would.

He then called an election ignoring his own election law which states to have an election every 4 years. So Harper wasted taxpayers money for an election because he thought he could win a majority. He was wrong and we still have a minority, so the election was pointless.

Then during budget speech this month he wanted to cut political vote subsidy ($1.25 per vote), but not cut political contribution subsidies (75% tax deductible! charities only get 25%). He thought not letting federal employees go on strike was a good idea...

[Tatar Khan]

He then called an election ignoring his own election law which states to have an election every 4 years. So Harper wasted taxpayers money for an election because he thought he could win a majority. He was wrong and we still have a minority, so the election was pointless.

There is the misunderstanding there, the law says that majority governments must sit for 4 years, the minority governments could call an election if they want to.

[Andrew]

To quote Stephen Harper:

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

So he couldn't wait ONE year for the next election, so he called a snap election. He attempted short term political gain, and he did gain some seats and destroyed the Liberals, but still no majority. Did you notice the attack ads were put on TV before he called an election? And when he prorogued parliament they put on more attack ads.

Harpers campaign against "the separatists" will ensure the Bloq party will continue winning almost all the seats in Quebec.

Also, for Harper to call an election this fall he must have thought that things were not working out that good. From what I remember there was no large opposition to them. Sure the other parties talked, but eventually someone supported the conservatives to put their bills through. So Harper got greedy, and once the other parties had enough they wanted to form the government but Harper wouldn't allow that and prorogued parliament. Is Harper gonna try to prorogue again in January if the coalition is still together? Maybe he wants them to force an election instead.

As for minority governments being able to call elections, shouldn't that only happen when the majority votes down a confidence motion?

[Andrew]

Hilarious, possibility of another federal election this summer.

Harper willing to talk with Ignatieff to avoid election

The prime minister's comments came after Ignatieff listed a series of conditions earlier in the day that he said Harper must meet to avoid the Liberals toppling the minority Conservative government in a no-confidence vote slated for Friday in the House of Commons.

If the Liberals had any balls they would trigger the election. I don't think anyone is impressed with Mister 'no deficit' Harper.

Although the bad thing is if another party got into power they'd try to outspend Conservatives in order to buy votes. Just got like conservatives did when they got into power.