Motion of No Confidence in Canada (Harper isn't going)

[Enigma]

Why do I get the feeling that the NDP's increasing popularity will bite the Liberals in the ass and split the left-wing votes ensuring a Tory win? Possibly a majority.

[Ekiqa]

Why do I get the feeling that the NDP's increasing popularity will bite the Liberals in the ass and split the left-wing votes ensuring a Tory win? Possibly a majority.

I'd prefer an NDP led coalition, as opposed to a Liberal led one. Ignatieff and the power behind the Liberals are so very close to Harper.

[Phantasee]

The power behind the Cons and the Libs is more or less two sides of the same coin. The NDP's problem is if they become a government they will be beholden to no interests but the voters, and quite frankly that scares me a little bit. I would like more input from the people in governing the country, but hand the whole system over to them and you've got a recipe for a nice mess as every short-sighted fool (most of them) asks for the world in exchange for lower taxes. This kind of shit is why California is so fucked up, no? Referendums (direct votes) on increasing taxes?

Yeah, the Libs and the Cons being in power benefit the elite, but at the same time, the Canadian elite don't really have an interest in destroying the rest of society because that society is what made them the wealthy elite in the first place. We don't really see an analogue to the Koch brothers up here.

[Norade]

I'd love to see the NDP as the leading edge of a coalition government with another party in the mix to keep them from swaying with the voting public too much. My only worry is that even with the way the NDP is polling voters may change votes at the last minute for a party they feel is more likely to win.

[Phantasee]

It's also important to remember that the NDP have had decent percentages of support in actual votes before, but the first past the post system kinda fucked them over every time. It's concentrated support in a riding that's important.

[aerius]

I just looked over the NDP platform for fun and the only thing I have to say is "how the fuck are you going to pay for all that shit?" They will significantly increase healthcare, education, and social security spending while handing out tax breaks to small businesses, keeping tax rates competitive for corporations and keeping taxes affordable for all. Then they claim they'll balance the budget within 4 years.
BULLSHIT!! The fucking idiots will bankrupt the country if they tried that, much like what Bob Rae did to Ontario but worse.

[Phantasee]

I think they plan on making the money from selling permits or licenses for emissions. And raising CPP contributions by 67c per hour worked.

[aerius]

Yeah, so we're running a $60 billion per year deficit and they're going to add at least $20 billion on top of it, and somehow they're going to make that up with emissions permits and CPP contributions. Somehow, I don't see that working.

[SCRawl]

I just looked over the NDP platform for fun and the only thing I have to say is "how the fuck are you going to pay for all that shit?" They will significantly increase healthcare, education, and social security spending while handing out tax breaks to small businesses, keeping tax rates competitive for corporations and keeping taxes affordable for all. Then they claim they'll balance the budget within 4 years.
BULLSHIT!! The fucking idiots will bankrupt the country if they tried that, much like what Bob Rae did to Ontario but worse.

IIRC their platform includes raising corporate taxes up to 19.5%, whereas the Liberals prefer 18%. The current rate is 16.5%, and the Conservatives are campaigning on reducing that to 15%. That kind of increase should bring in something like $7 or $8 billion in additional revenue (making some very simplistic assumptions), but not enough to close the budget gap.

[Norade]

It's also important to remember that the NDP have had decent percentages of support in actual votes before, but the first past the post system kinda fucked them over every time. It's concentrated support in a riding that's important.

Goes to show how uninformed I am about the way things are run beyond a local scale.

[aerius]

Total corporate tax receipts for the federal government in 2009-2010 was a bit over $30 billion with a 19% rate. When our economy was going full speed ahead with a 22% rate it was a bit over $40 billion. So even to get $7-8 billion we'd need to crank up the rates some more and get one hell of an economic recovery.

[HarrionGreyjoy]

I readily admit that my knowledge of the Canadian banking system (central and otherwise) is a bit shoddy, but a $60b deficit during a continuing but improving economic downturn supported by the usual means seems pretty viable given a cursory look at demand for Canadian treasury bonds / etc. Or are there some special characteristics of the way Canada finances its debt that make a temporary spike unsuitable?

I can obviously see being leery of supporting a party that would probably quite like to run a *continuing* deficit, of course.

[Phantasee]

Nobody likes a deficit. Even in Alberta, where we have the cash reserves to fund infrastructure spending as a stimulus during this recession, had the finance minister resign rather then table a budget that projected a deficit until 2013-14, instead of the earlier claim of 2012-13. Which forced the premier to resign as well. Please note that we have the cash for this spending and it's been a net benefit for us since we get important infrastructure built for cheaper than normal and we create jobs. The government has the revenues to fund its operating expenses, the deficit is just from the extra infrastructure spending.

But still, crying about being fiscally irresponsible.

[aerius]

I readily admit that my knowledge of the Canadian banking system (central and otherwise) is a bit shoddy, but a $60b deficit during a continuing but improving economic downturn supported by the usual means seems pretty viable given a cursory look at demand for Canadian treasury bonds / etc. Or are there some special characteristics of the way Canada finances its debt that make a temporary spike unsuitable?

I can obviously see being leery of supporting a party that would probably quite like to run a *continuing* deficit, of course.

The problem is it's not a temporary spike and it wasn't caused by the recession. Paul Martin, the former finance minister responsible for balancing our budgets and running a surplus for over 10 years speaks his mind in this article

At a campaign event in Edmonton Saturday, former prime minister Paul Martin weighed in with his opinion on Stephen Harper's plans to slash $11 billion from the federal budget.

"They can't find that money without major cuts," he stated.

One area that is clearly in danger is health care, Martin said, because Harper doesn't think health care is a federal responsibility.

It's not believable that Harper would present a budget and then two weeks later have a whole new set of cuts in order to chop the deficit even faster, said the former Liberal finance minister.

He said the Conservatives aren't prepared to identify where the cuts will come, because they know it will be to the services Canadians need and want.

"I don't think they can do it," Martin concluded.

At an Edmonton rally later, Martin told a crowd that the Conservatives took the country into deficit long before the recession hit.

"The messed up the economy, they took away our margin of error, they took away this country's ability to deal with the changes. Not only that then they missed the signals of the global recession,"Martin said to chants of "shame, shame" from the crowd.

We shouldn't have had a deficit to begin with, the reason we had one was because the idiots in charge decided to hand out tax cuts for everyone and blow a fat wad of cash they didn't have on stimulus and military spending. Thanks to Harper, we've already broken our all-time highs in national debt and there's no end in sight to the deficits so that debt's going to keep piling up. If we keep this up it's only a matter of time before everyone starts dumping our treasury bonds and devaluing our currency into worthlessness, it happened in the 80s and it will happen again if we keep being stupid. Back then we even lost our AAA credit rating for letting our finances get so out of balance, if this happens again we're in deep shit.

None of the parties will do anything to fix this. They all claim they'll reduce or eliminate the deficit but the numbers don't add up, you can't close a deficit by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Jiggling corporate taxes might net a few extra billion a year, but that doesn't help when you're blowing 10 times that amount in new spending and tax cuts.

[Ekiqa]

Based on what Layton has been saying, the NDP would stop subsidies to big oil, meaning an extra $1.5 billion in revenue. If they plan on eliminating other subsidies to the biggest corporations, so that they actually do pay taxes, then I can see that increasing revenues as well.

And don't forget, the last time the NDP had power in Canada, we got such wonderful things as a social safety net. Bring them back, and health-care won't be killed.

[aerius]

And don't forget, the last time the NDP had power in Canada, we got such wonderful things as a social safety net. Bring them back, and health-care won't be killed.

Yes it will, because we won't be able to pay for it. Corporate tax revenue is $30 billion or so, the highest it's ever been is $40 billion. We could double the corporate rate & cut all subsidies and it still won't close the current deficit, nevermind paying for all the new social security & healthcare benefits that the NDP wants to roll out. The money isn't there, period.

Like it or not we will have accept a higher GST, corporate and personal tax rates, and have all social safety & healthcare spending frozen or reduced for the next 5-10 years until we get our deficit zeroed out and start paying down our debt again if we want our country to remain on a sound financial standing. That is the reality of our cashflow situation, anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar or can't do math. The PC & NDP platforms will bankrupt the country worse than what Bob Rae did to Ontario, the Liberals are less bad but they still suck.

[Phantasee]

Based on what Layton has been saying, the NDP would stop subsidies to big oil, meaning an extra $1.5 billion in revenue. If they plan on eliminating other subsidies to the biggest corporations, so that they actually do pay taxes, then I can see that increasing revenues as well.

And don't forget, the last time the NDP had power in Canada, we got such wonderful things as a social safety net. Bring them back, and health-care won't be killed.

1.5 billion isn't much. And they never mentioned any other subsidies, just for the energy sector.

PS when was the last time the NDP had power in Canada? Hint: it's closer to "never" than your statement implies.

[Ekiqa]

PS when was the last time the NDP had power in Canada? Hint: it's closer to "never" than your statement implies.

Liberal-NDP coalition, they forced the Liberals to introduce health care and such.

[Magis]

We shouldn't have had a deficit to begin with, the reason we had one was because the idiots in charge decided to hand out tax cuts for everyone and blow a fat wad of cash they didn't have on stimulus and military spending. Thanks to Harper, we've already broken our all-time highs in national debt and there's no end in sight to the deficits so that debt's going to keep piling up. If we keep this up it's only a matter of time before everyone starts dumping our treasury bonds and devaluing our currency into worthlessness, it happened in the 80s and it will happen again if we keep being stupid. Back then we even lost our AAA credit rating for letting our finances get so out of balance, if this happens again we're in deep shit.

None of the parties will do anything to fix this. They all claim they'll reduce or eliminate the deficit but the numbers don't add up, you can't close a deficit by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Jiggling corporate taxes might net a few extra billion a year, but that doesn't help when you're blowing 10 times that amount in new spending and tax cuts.

Firstly, last year's deficit was $41 billion, not $60 billion. The 2011/2012 budget is projected to be $27.6 billion.

Secondly, the cause of the deficit is not a reduction in tax rates. The pre-recession tax cuts reduced the federal surplus to about zero, and the government balance sheet was floating near zero, plus or minus some small margin. The deficit was entirely recession related, arising simultaneously from three sources: a $30 billion/year stimulus that was demanded by all parties (at first reluctantly by the Conservatives); a massive increase in social spending, i.e. employment insurance benefits; a sharp reduction in tax receipts resulting from increased unemployment and loss of corporate earnings.

Even with the tax rates that were in place pre-Harper, the deficit would have been nearly identical.

[aerius]

Firstly, last year's deficit was $41 billion, not $60 billion. The 2011/2012 budget is projected to be $27.6 billion.

The PBO and most other sources I can find all say the 2009/2010 deficit was $56 billion, and projects $45 billion for the current fiscal year. And it projects a structural deficit for at least the next 4 years.

Secondly, the cause of the deficit is not a reduction in tax rates. The pre-recession tax cuts reduced the federal surplus to about zero, and the government balance sheet was floating near zero, plus or minus some small margin. The deficit was entirely recession related, arising simultaneously from three sources: a $30 billion/year stimulus that was demanded by all parties (at first reluctantly by the Conservatives); a massive increase in social spending, i.e. employment insurance benefits; a sharp reduction in tax receipts resulting from increased unemployment and loss of corporate earnings.

Even with the tax rates that were in place pre-Harper, the deficit would have been nearly identical.

In other words, reduced a ~$10 billion a year surplus to zero via tax cuts, then blew a fat wad of cash they didn't have on stimulus spending and other programs. Not to mention those F-35 airplanes. Back out the stimulus, tax cuts, and pork spending and we're probably looking at a $10-15 billion deficit at worst for 2009/2010, and we'd be close to breaking even for the current fiscal year.

[Korvan]

I'm leaning towards voting green this time as the green candidate in my riding is polling 2nd and could be a contender. Now I think a Green government would be an absolute disaster, one or two seats would help to keep environmental issues more in the forefront. I 'm not buying into the Liberal's whole vote strategically thing as a Conservative Majority doesn't scare me that much. I think having a majority for the Conservatives would see them almost wiped out in the next election.

Ultimately (and cynically) I don't think it really much matters, as I believe democracies just aren't able to deal with the upcoming challenges (economic, environmental, demographic etc).

On a lighter note, I was talking politics with my parents (both in their late 60's) who are pretty much diehard NDP supporters. My Mom declared that the only way she would vote liberal would be if Justin Trudeau was leader because he is so cute.

[aerius]

I'm leaning towards voting green this time as the green candidate in my riding is polling 2nd and could be a contender. Now I think a Green government would be an absolute disaster, one or two seats would help to keep environmental issues more in the forefront.

I'm in a solid Liberal riding, right now I'm deciding whether to vote Green or Marxist-Leninist for my protest vote, probably Green because the candidate is hotter. Sadly, that's what it's coming down to.

I 'm not buying into the Liberal's whole vote strategically thing as a Conservative Majority doesn't scare me that much. I think having a majority for the Conservatives would see them almost wiped out in the next election.

It should wipe them out quite nicely, the part I'm worried about is how much damage gets done in the meantime and whether that damage can be repaired in a reasonable amount of time. Or if there'll be a party which has the balls to make the hard decisions needed to fix things up after the next election.

Ultimately (and cynically) I don't think it really much matters, as I believe democracies just aren't able to deal with the upcoming challenges (economic, environmental, demographic etc).

The last bunch of Liberals weren't bad at all, I think they could manage the challenges that we face in the coming years. Well, they would until the braindead peckerheads vote them out for not handing out more tax breaks and free stuff. Environmental responsibility is going to cost money? The GST is going back up to 7%? Time to vote for someone else! Yeah, it'll take one hell of a propaganda campaign to keep the people voting for things which are good for the country and not just themselves.

[bobalot]

The last bunch of Liberals weren't bad at all, I think they could manage the challenges that we face in the coming years. Well, they would until the braindead peckerheads vote them out for not handing out more tax breaks and free stuff. Environmental responsibility is going to cost money? The GST is going back up to 7%? Time to vote for someone else! Yeah, it'll take one hell of a propaganda campaign to keep the people voting for things which are good for the country and not just themselves.

That just about happens in any democracy where most of the citizens are fairly well off. It makes a lot of people soft self-centred arseholes.

You should hear the amount of whining we have in Australia about how "tough" people are doing, even though unemployment is at near historic lows and the economy is growing at a rate above 2% per annum. Today, it is not uncommon to see well off families on TV or in newspapers whining that a combined income of 100K+ is only "middle class" and they are doing it "tough" and they need the government to "do something". Fucking unbelievable.

[TithonusSyndrome]

The PC & NDP platforms will bankrupt the country worse than what Bob Rae did to Ontario, the Liberals are less bad but they still suck.

So in the likely event of a runoff between the NDP and PC parties whose economic platforms you consider equally poor, would you defer the choice to deciding it based on their social policies and platforms and the effects that their demonstrated character would have on the above? If so (and I don't see why not) then the PC loses by the longest mile imaginable. Most of this thread has centered around the economic platforms of the parties in Parliament, so if any of this is already known then forgive me - let's just consider it an infodump for the benefit of non-Canadians, then?

• Harper was a founding member of the Northern Foundation, Canada's only professional academic organization devoted to the promotion and sustaining of South African apartheid and continued imprisonment of Nelson Mandela:
  

  ‎"The Northern Foundation was established in 1989, originally as a pro-South Africa group... lists among the founding members of the Foundation both William Gairdner and Stephen Harper."
  
  -Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Author: Murray Dobbin Goodread Biographies/Formac Publishing 1992 ISBN: 0-88780-161-7, pg. 100
  
  "... the Northern Foundation was the creation of a number of generally extreme right-wing conservatives, including Anne Hartmann (a director of REAL Women), Geoffrey Wasteneys (A long-standing member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), George Potter (also a member of the Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada), author Peter Brimelow, Link Byfield (son of Ted Byfield and himself publisher/president of Alberta Report), and Stephen Harper."
  
  - Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada. Author: Trevor Harrison Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1995. ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6, Pg. 121

• Harper unashamedly accepted known members of the white supremacist Heritage Front organization into the Northern Foundation, and maintained professional relationships with many of them when he made the leap to the Reform Party:
  

  "The next month, on June 12, 1991, the Reform Party of Canada held a massive rally in Mississauga, Ontario. The event, which drew some 6,000 people to hear Preston Manning, marked the first high profile event for the security group directed by Droege's employer, Alan Overfield. ... On June 13, 1991, several Heritage Front members attended a meeting of Paul Fromm's Canadians for Foreign Aid Reform (C-FAR) where Overfield from the Reform Party set up a table to sign people up for the Party. The dates on the membership forms for Droege, Polinuk, Dawson and Mitrevski, however, show that they had joined the Party before that meeting."
  
  "Among its members was Wolfgang Droege. One of its para-military group "soldiers" was Alan Overfield.... Overfield considered himself a friend to Wolfgang Droege and would not "turn his back on him. Droege confided in Overfield." As a result of this relationship and his position within the Reform Party, Overfield obtained Droege's assistance for Reform Party security duties... He said that before he joined, "he let the Reform Party executive know about his political past, and they had no problems with it." He said that he informed them that he had been a member of the Edmund Burke Society. He apparently did not mention his long involvement with the Nationalist Party of Canada... Overfield has also stated that Stephen Harper, MP knew his background."
  
  -The Heritage Front Affair Report to the Solicitor General of Canada Security Intelligence Review Committee, December 9, 1994

• He's a Stalin admirer. Like, an ACTUAL Stalin admirer.
  

  "But Harper's choice of reading material has disturbed even some of his own party members.
  
  The senior Tory recounted being told Harper had "read and mastered" the biography and leadership style of Russia's Communist dictator Josef Stalin, and said the prime minister has adopted some of the same tactics.
  
  "He plays people off against one another, he attempts to inspire fear rather than respect, he is unpredictable and he is 100 per cent focused on eliminating the opposition," the senior Conservative explained."

• He's transformed the House of Commons into a cult of personality-style photo gallery of himself, space traditionally meant for images of previous PMs:
  

  "Photographs of Mr. Harper in various poses, at various sites, are hung throughout the private and cosy government lobby of the House of Commons.
  
  Ms. May and Ms. O'Malley were surprised and a bit speechless when they saw the exhibit recently as guest Commons Speakers during a youth Parliament.
  
  "When you walk in the door, all you see are pictures of Stephen Harper," said Ms. May.
  
  "I'd say between every window, in every available space of the wall, at eye level, every available space has a photo of Stephen Harper."

• Further in the vein of his cult of personality, he's made a Bush-style order to replace every mention of "the Government of Canada" in federal communiques with "The Harper Government":
  

  It's official: Stephen Harper rules.
  
  And lest anyone forgets, a directive went out to public servants late last year that "Government of Canada" in federal communications should be replaced by the words "Harper Government."
  
  Public servants from four different line departments told The Canadian Press the instruction came from "the Centre" -- meaning the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office that serves the prime minister...
  
  ...Cappe said the usage brings to mind Harper's own quip of last summer on the Arctic tundra: "I make the rules," Harper told journalists after he disembarked from an all-terrain vehicle.

There's more I could list, far more, but that'll probably give most people an idea of what we're dealing with here. I really truly believed that something like Bush just "couldn't happen here" for the better part of the 00's, and now I'm being forced to eat crow that I paid for in advance with political apathy and ignorance. If the NDP are no better than the Tories (which I dispute at least to the extent that they would stop doing the Bad Stuff ie plutocratic ideologue fellatio etc and can scale back social program spending a lot easier than the Tories will ever give up their precious ineffective corporate tax cuts) then on the grounds that Harper and his Straussian Calgary School are despicably unfit to be anywhere near parliament, I will vote for a pork rind if need be to evict him.

[aerius]

So in the likely event of a runoff between the NDP and PC parties whose economic platforms you consider equally poor, would you defer the choice to deciding it based on their social policies and platforms and the effects that their demonstrated character would have on the above? If so (and I don't see why not) then the PC loses by the longest mile imaginable.

Man, that's like asking me if I want to punched in the balls or kicked in the balls; either way it's going to suck and hurt like hell. But if you held a gun to my head and asked me to decide which one is less bad overall, I'd go with the NDP.