[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Barrister]

That's what happens when an economy is dependent on resource.  Too bad successive PC governments didn't stick to the plan of maintaining the rainy day fund like the Norweigans.  Can't blame the new government for that.

I don't blame the NDP for that.  I blamed the PCs for that.  I didn't vote for the PCs in either of the last two elections.

What I do blame the NDP for is there seems to be zero interest or willingness to make any kinds of cuts to spending, which seem to be incredibly obvious thing to do with a deficit that large.

[crazy canuck]

It is not so obvious in an economic downturn as significant as Alberta's circumstance.  That was the reason for the royalty fund.

[Monoriu]

One thing I've been consistent about in all the years I've been on this forum, and which is key in shaping my economic/political outlook, is that I don't believe that having a balanced budget all the time is necessary, or even good. I think public spending is a necessary evil for all sort of reasons and to do govern properly, deficits are necessary. Some of the great infrastructure projects of history, after all, were built by massive government spending. Of course running a deficit endlessly is a cause for disaster. Ideally you need to flip between the two back and forth as needed. The keys are moderation and not thinking that deficits are bad.

But this is no longer a popular ideology. The NDP, for instance, has moved to the centre and has talked about balancing the budget. Whether, if elected, Mulcair will do this remains to be seen. Frankly, I think, balanced budgets sound good but are never practical. For all his talk, Harper has never balanced the books yet. (For that reason alone, then, his supporters should turf him.)

So it is quite surprising to see J. Trudeau embracing government spending and infrastructure projects over balanced budgets. Maybe the Liberal Party is moving to take over the vacuum on the left, now that the NDP has sold itself to centrism.

As of now, I'm now thinking of voting Liberal.

The problem with spending too much is that eventually you'll reach a point where the markets will say enough is enough.  You don't even know where that point is, because it is largely determined by external circumstances.  When that point is reached, you lose a considerable degree of sovereignty, as creditors, markets and international forces walk in and interfere in your policies, with "cutting off further funding" as an effective leverage.  It is not just a problem of economics.  It is a problem of letting outsiders take charge of your finances. 

Or see exhibit Greece. 

[viper37]

One thing I've been consistent about in all the years I've been on this forum, and which is key in shaping my economic/political outlook, is that I don't believe that having a balanced budget all the time is necessary, or even good. I think public spending is a necessary evil for all sort of reasons and to do govern properly, deficits are necessary. Some of the great infrastructure projects of history, after all, were built by massive government spending. Of course running a deficit endlessly is a cause for disaster. Ideally you need to flip between the two back and forth as needed. The keys are moderation and not thinking that deficits are bad.

the problem lies in the fact that governments almost never balance the budget.  Also, the larger part of the deficit has always been for "grocery shopping", not infrastructures.

[Josephus]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

[viper37]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

the Conservatives have balanced the budget up until 2008 when the opposition parties forced their hand.  And they brought it back close to balance, without raising taxes.

[crazy canuck]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

As I stated above, the problem isn't that Trudeau is admitting he wont balance the budget or even that balancing the budget is important.  It is why he says he will not balance the budget.  He is going to engage in stimulus spending at a time when the economy is beginning to grow.  Better to keep that stimulus spending for when the economy actually needs it.  Also he is going to dump a large amount of money over a short period of time whether major infrastructure projects are reading for that funding or not.  I agree that we need more money spent on infrastructure but it is much better to have funding over the long term so that projects can be properly planned rather then the funding going to shovel ready projects that may be less of a priority.

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

[Josephus]

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

Agree 100 per cent. But when public discourse is limited to 140 characters, alas, this is what we get.

[Barrister]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

As I stated above, the problem isn't that Trudeau is admitting he wont balance the budget or even that balancing the budget is important.  It is why he says he will not balance the budget.  He is going to engage in stimulus spending at a time when the economy is beginning to grow.  Better to keep that stimulus spending for when the economy actually needs it.  Also he is going to dump a large amount of money over a short period of time whether major infrastructure projects are reading for that funding or not.  I agree that we need more money spent on infrastructure but it is much better to have funding over the long term so that projects can be properly planned rather then the funding going to shovel ready projects that may be less of a priority.

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

You know what - while I think there are complications and technicalities, we'd be a lot better off starting with the presumption that "Deficits = bad".

[crazy canuck]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

As I stated above, the problem isn't that Trudeau is admitting he wont balance the budget or even that balancing the budget is important.  It is why he says he will not balance the budget.  He is going to engage in stimulus spending at a time when the economy is beginning to grow.  Better to keep that stimulus spending for when the economy actually needs it.  Also he is going to dump a large amount of money over a short period of time whether major infrastructure projects are reading for that funding or not.  I agree that we need more money spent on infrastructure but it is much better to have funding over the long term so that projects can be properly planned rather then the funding going to shovel ready projects that may be less of a priority.

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

You know what - while I think there are complications and technicalities, we'd be a lot better off starting with the presumption that "Deficits = bad".

But that leads to lazy thinking that all deficits are necessarily bad.  Imo it is much better to a acknowledge that there are circumstances when running a deficit can be the best choice and cutting spending to attempt to balance the books can be the worst possible public policy decision.

[Josephus]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

As I stated above, the problem isn't that Trudeau is admitting he wont balance the budget or even that balancing the budget is important.  It is why he says he will not balance the budget.  He is going to engage in stimulus spending at a time when the economy is beginning to grow.  Better to keep that stimulus spending for when the economy actually needs it.  Also he is going to dump a large amount of money over a short period of time whether major infrastructure projects are reading for that funding or not.  I agree that we need more money spent on infrastructure but it is much better to have funding over the long term so that projects can be properly planned rather then the funding going to shovel ready projects that may be less of a priority.

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

You know what - while I think there are complications and technicalities, we'd be a lot better off starting with the presumption that "Deficits = bad".

Then you'd agree that Harper's fiscal policies arent' any good since it's been a long while since he balanced a budget?

[crazy canuck]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

As I stated above, the problem isn't that Trudeau is admitting he wont balance the budget or even that balancing the budget is important.  It is why he says he will not balance the budget.  He is going to engage in stimulus spending at a time when the economy is beginning to grow.  Better to keep that stimulus spending for when the economy actually needs it.  Also he is going to dump a large amount of money over a short period of time whether major infrastructure projects are reading for that funding or not.  I agree that we need more money spent on infrastructure but it is much better to have funding over the long term so that projects can be properly planned rather then the funding going to shovel ready projects that may be less of a priority.

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

You know what - while I think there are complications and technicalities, we'd be a lot better off starting with the presumption that "Deficits = bad".

Then you'd agree that Harper's fiscal policies arent' any good since it's been a long while since he balanced a budget?

Yeah, I think that it exactly the response to the simplistic approach that deficits = bad.  If the presumption always is that deficits are bad then governments should cut spending to balance their books in all cases.  That of course would be silly public policy and exposes the simplistic debate now occurring in this election.

[Barrister]

Agreed. Even parties who make it their ideology to balance budgets never do-- so let's move away from that nonsense. Trudeau, at least, is the only one who admits he won't balance the budget.

As I stated above, the problem isn't that Trudeau is admitting he wont balance the budget or even that balancing the budget is important.  It is why he says he will not balance the budget.  He is going to engage in stimulus spending at a time when the economy is beginning to grow.  Better to keep that stimulus spending for when the economy actually needs it.  Also he is going to dump a large amount of money over a short period of time whether major infrastructure projects are reading for that funding or not.  I agree that we need more money spent on infrastructure but it is much better to have funding over the long term so that projects can be properly planned rather then the funding going to shovel ready projects that may be less of a priority.

The biggest problem (not directed at you but the way politics are discussed in general) is that the political discourse has become too simplistic.  The issue is a lot more complex then deficits = bad or deficits = good.

You know what - while I think there are complications and technicalities, we'd be a lot better off starting with the presumption that "Deficits = bad".

Then you'd agree that Harper's fiscal policies arent' any good since it's been a long while since he balanced a budget?

Except I can remember history.  In particular 2008/9, where Harper brought in a fiscally prudent budget, then the opposition parties formed a coalition to oust him from power on the principle that Canada should be running a deficit.

[crazy canuck]

Except I can remember history.  In particular 2008/9, where Harper brought in a fiscally prudent budget, then the opposition parties formed a coalition to oust him from power on the principle that Canada should be running a deficit.

OK but what about the deficits during the majority years?  I think they were reasonable given the circumstances.  But the deficit = bad mantra requires a different conclusion.

[crazy canuck]

Here is a very interesting stat in the Globe.  Over half of Canadians are still undecided. And bad news for the Conservatives - their support is dropping.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/half-of-canadian-voters-undecided-poll/article26170445/

Few Canadians made up their minds in the first 31 days of the federal election campaign, and the three-way race is still wide open. Half of Canadians are still willing to consider voting for any of two or more parties.

There have been tours, rallies, announcements, commercials and even a leaders' debate, but all that hasn't clinched many votes over the course of August. All three major parties remain in a statistical tie – but there's plenty of potential for the race to swing wildly in the seven weeks before the Oct. 19 vote.


Only 44 per cent of those surveyed by Nanos Research indicated they are set on one choice for their vote. That's up only marginally from late July, before the campaign began, when 40 per cent said they are considering only one party. By contrast, 50 per cent of voters are still willing to consider any of two, three or more parties – and another 6.6 per cent say they are unsure, or don't like any party.

There has been interest in the campaign, even in a traditional vacation season, as television networks and news organizations have seen relatively high ratings and readerships for political news. But August has been a preliminary round, not a decisive period.

It was Conservative Leader Stephen Harper who triggered the election more than six weeks earlier than expected, thereby raising campaign spending limits – providing an edge to his party, which has a larger war chest of cash and can spend more on advertising in the final weeks.

But so far, it is Mr. Harper's party that, although still statistically tied in a three-way race, faces a note of concern: their room for growth is more limited than other parties and appears to be shrinking.

The Conservatives are now nominally third in Nanos polling, but the gap between the three major parties is within the 3.1-per-cent margin of error for the telephone survey of 1,000 Canadians. The polls were conducted between Aug. 2 and 28 as a rolling survey of 250 Canadians each week.

Thomas Mulcair's NDP had the support of 30.8 per cent, Justin Trudeau's Liberals 29.7 per cent, and the Conservatives 28.8 per cent. The Tories have slid from 31.5 per cent four weeks ago, but that's still within the margin of error.

But the pool of voters open to casting their ballots for the Conservatives is eroding. Only 37.5 per cent say they would consider voting Conservative, down from 42.2 per cent four weeks ago. That means that the proportion of people who will consider voting for the Conservatives is smaller than the 39.6 per cent who actually voted for the party in 2011.

When asked to provide a second choice for their vote, only 11 per cent chose the Conservatives.

In contrast, both the NDP and Liberals have significantly larger pools of potential voters. The survey found the NDP is the second choice of 22.1 per cent and, overall, 49.5 per cent said they would consider voting for the New Democrats. The Liberals are the second choice of 25.6 per cent, and 46.5 per cent said they would consider voting for the party.

The Conservatives still have the most committed supporters, however: 41.3 per cent refused to identify their second choice, even when asked. NDP supporters are far less definitive: only 14.2 per cent said they have no second choice. And Mr. Trudeau's support seems to have solidified somewhat: In July, only 11.1 per cent of Liberals said they have no second choice; now 19.8 per cent choose only the Liberals.