[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The only nit I have with that is that I don't think the Cons actually ran out of policies on fiscal management - they just got overshadowed by other issues, like open governance, their obscurantism on matters scientific, etc. I agree they ended up resorting to gimmicks and short-sighted, short-term electoral strategies.

The problem for them was that the 'we are wise fiscal managers' message simply wasn't enough to overcome the other problems they had with governance - it was there, but after 10 years in government, Canadians have simply taken that for granted, and aren't impressed with it or weigh it all that highly compared against the really annoying stuff the Cons did. One question, over the term of the next government, will be how Trudeau and team manage to balance all of their (more or less expensive) election promises against the possibility of reminding us just what unwise fiscal management really looks like.  Part of the problem, I suspect, with a "team approach" is that each Minister will want their wonderful, important pet projects to go ahead - and it takes a strong PM to reign them in and avoid spending the country into the ground ...

We found something to disagree about 

The Conservatives were sticking to a script that had been created before the drop in oil prices.  The promise to balance budgets and cut taxes for everyone could be seen as being a lot less relevant in a country looking at an economic downturn.  I think Oliver was a terrible choice for Finance.  If he had a vision of how he wanted to manage economic matters he did a very good job of keeping it to himself.  The Conservatives needed to demonstrate that they would be good fiscal managers in the current circumstances.  Not simply promise to reduce taxes and keep the budget in surplus when it was apparent that with declining resource based tax revenue that would be a very difficult promise to keep and if kept, would likely require significant cuts.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how well the Liberals will be able to keep their spending promises regarding continuing to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.  I don't think it necessarily takes just a strong PM to pull that off.  It can also be achieved by a strong cabinet.

[Valmy]

I don't think it necessarily takes just a strong PM to pull that off.

Pity because you have that

[Malthus]

I don't think it necessarily takes just a strong PM to pull that off.

Pity because you have that

Well, we already know he got Marti's vote. 

[Malthus]

We found something to disagree about 

The Conservatives were sticking to a script that had been created before the drop in oil prices.  The promise to balance budgets and cut taxes for everyone could be seen as being a lot less relevant in a country looking at an economic downturn.  I think Oliver was a terrible choice for Finance.  If he had a vision of how he wanted to manage economic matters he did a very good job of keeping it to himself.  The Conservatives needed to demonstrate that they would be good fiscal managers in the current circumstances.  Not simply promise to reduce taxes and keep the budget in surplus when it was apparent that with declining resource based tax revenue that would be a very difficult promise to keep and if kept, would likely require significant cuts.

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election. What counted for the majority of voters was not a reasoned debate over the significance of deficit financing, but such stuff as the whole absurd Muslim snitch-line and other assorted silliness, building on a perception that already existed that the Cons were just plain out of touch, defensive and negative in a host of ways.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how well the Liberals will be able to keep their spending promises regarding continuing to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.  I don't think it necessarily takes just a strong PM to pull that off.  It can also be achieved by a strong cabinet.

I dunno about that. A strong cabinet means a bunch of strong, ambitious, talented ministers. The concern is that they may each pull, strongly, in the direction of their appointed ministry, without (to use an equestrian analogy  ) a firm hand on the reigns to control them. They are, after all, competing with each other for resources - who is to judge how much goes to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, and how much to the Ministry of Indigenous and Northern Affairs? Each Minister is likely to thing their particular ministry needs more. After all, what could be more important that Climate Change - or Indigenous Affairs - or whatever? 

[crazy canuck]

I think that model is present most with the cabinet ministers have to convince a central authority that their portfolio deserves more funding.  But if they all take responsibility for the commitment to reduce the debt to GDP ratio then it can work well.  Remember this is not as simple as just saying they are going to be in surplus.  They can continue to reduce the ratio by also boosting GDP.

[viper37]

The only nit I have with that is that I don't think the Cons actually ran out of policies on fiscal management - they just got overshadowed by other issues, like open governance, their obscurantism on matters scientific, etc. I agree they ended up resorting to gimmicks and short-sighted, short-term electoral strategies.

The problem for them was that the 'we are wise fiscal managers' message simply wasn't enough to overcome the other problems they had with governance - it was there, but after 10 years in government, Canadians have simply taken that for granted, and aren't impressed with it or weigh it all that highly compared against the really annoying stuff the Cons did. One question, over the term of the next government, will be how Trudeau and team manage to balance all of their (more or less expensive) election promises against the possibility of reminding us just what unwise fiscal management really looks like.  Part of the problem, I suspect, with a "team approach" is that each Minister will want their wonderful, important pet projects to go ahead - and it takes a strong PM to reign them in and avoid spending the country into the ground ...

We found something to disagree about 

The Conservatives were sticking to a script that had been created before the drop in oil prices.  The promise to balance budgets and cut taxes for everyone could be seen as being a lot less relevant in a country looking at an economic downturn.  I think Oliver was a terrible choice for Finance.  If he had a vision of how he wanted to manage economic matters he did a very good job of keeping it to himself.  The Conservatives needed to demonstrate that they would be good fiscal managers in the current circumstances.  Not simply promise to reduce taxes and keep the budget in surplus when it was apparent that with declining resource based tax revenue that would be a very difficult promise to keep and if kept, would likely require significant cuts.

I agree that it will be interesting to see how well the Liberals will be able to keep their spending promises regarding continuing to reduce the debt to GDP ratio.  I don't think it necessarily takes just a strong PM to pull that off.  It can also be achieved by a strong cabinet.

I still don't see that economic downturn.  What I see is the private sector gradually taking over government investments.  Many regions are booming, but big cities are failing.  No surprise there.

There's never been so much work in a while, I had to refuse a few jobs for this fall, but we'll have work for the winter.

[Malthus]

On another note, I was reading up the other day on some of the cabinet members and I was particularly struck by the resume of the new Defense Minister - who apparently had successful careers as a police detective before having a decorated career in the army, rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel. Seems a vey strong choice.

One detail struck me as amusing, given the whole "reasonable accommodation" debates we have seen off and on again (and of course in the election). The new Minister is a practicing Sikh, with the turban and facial hair that sect requires. Allegedly, the typical army gas masks don't work with a beard - so this fellow went out and invented one that did. Got it patented, too. So he can add "inventor" to his list of accomplishments. 

In the United States, there are roughly 1.4 million active-duty members of the military. Only three of them are Sikh men, and they all serve in noncombat roles. Except under very rare circumstances, the Pentagon prohibits active-duty service members from having facial hair and wearing religious headwear. Sikh leaders in the United States have long pushed for reforms to policies they say deter Sikh men, whose beards and turbans are considered nonnegotiable articles of faith, from joining the military.

One reason the Pentagon prohibits Sikhs from wearing beards is because they argue they are not compatible with gas masks. But while serving in the Canadian military, Sajjan created his own version of the gas mask, which he later patented, in order to keep his beard. In 2011, when he served as an advisor to U.S. Lt. Gen. James Terry in Afghanistan, he noted the paradox of his situation.

"It's ironic," he said. "There I was advising the top generals, and the U.S. Army doesn't allow Sikhs [in turbans] to join."

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/11/05/canadas-new-defense-minister-made-his-own-gas-mask-to-work-with-his-sikh-beard/

[crazy canuck]

What I see is the private sector gradually taking over government investments.  Many regions are booming, but big cities are failing.  No surprise there.

What you see is not necessarily accurate for the rest of the country.  I am not sure how one could argue that Vancouver and Toronto are failing. 

[Valmy]

Well there is Toronto's Hockey team.

[crazy canuck]

Well there is Toronto's Hockey team.

Its still early in the season.  They have not yet failed entirely.

[Josephus]

Well there is Toronto's Hockey team.

Its still early in the season.  They have not yet failed entirely.

Yeah, we've written them off already

[viper37]

but such stuff as the whole absurd Muslim snitch-line and other assorted silliness, building on a perception that already existed that the Cons were just plain out of touch, defensive and negative in a host of ways.

While the move was stupid, it was not aimed at muslims more than any other group, given the past definition of "barbaric practices".

[viper37]

What I see is the private sector gradually taking over government investments.  Many regions are booming, but big cities are failing.  No surprise there.

What you see is not necessarily accurate for the rest of the country.  I am not sure how one could argue that Vancouver and Toronto are failing. 

then there's no need for another unuseful stimulus package.

[crazy canuck]

What I see is the private sector gradually taking over government investments.  Many regions are booming, but big cities are failing.  No surprise there.

What you see is not necessarily accurate for the rest of the country.  I am not sure how one could argue that Vancouver and Toronto are failing. 

then there's no need for another unuseful stimulus package.

There is a need to address the failure of the Federal government to participate in a number of infrastructure projects, as just one example, whether or not the economy is in a deficit position.

[Jacob]

I agree a good case could be made that a change in fiscal policies was necessary. I do not, however, think that played much of a role in the past election.

It depends on how you mean by "played much of a role". I think the declaration that the Liberals were going to run deficits for three years struck a cord in a number of ways.

It was fairly bold in the face of the prevailing austerity currents flowing in public discourse worldwide, so it came across as leadership. It also, I expect, helped with the various voter groups who felt their priorities were being fiscally starved - be arts people, gov't workers, health care, or and a number of other areas.

It may not have been the main focus of the rhetoric, but I think it helped the Liberals beat the NDP on the left, and I think it helped define the Liberals positively.