Budget Update
Today, Jim Flaherty brought down the fall update. With the opposition parties pledging to oppose it, we could be back in another election after having one only a mere 6 weeks ago. I highly doubt this will trigger an election, still I think the update clearly was provocative and should be changed.
As we enter a recession, now is time to put partisan interests aside and put the interests of the country and its people first and partisan interest lasts. We can get more done by working together rather than apart. In the US, both McCain and Obama in the last election talked about times when they reached across the aisle and throughout the world, parties of different political stripes are putting aside their narrow partisan interest. Unfortunately that is not happening here in Canada. I am not oppose to the fact the Tories do not include an economic stimulus at the moment, since in crisis like these I would rather the government take their time to consult and look things over carefully so we can get it right. The main thing is that the government is taking the economy seriously and taking action. Unfortunately it appears the Tories are asleep at the switch and don't seem to take the situation seriously. I also believe we should do as much as possible to avoid a deficit, but not at all cost, however, if we do go into deficit, it should be as small as possible and their should be a plan to get out of it as soon as we recover. My greatest worry is that once we go into deficit it could be many years before we come out. United States had a surplus when Bush entered office in 2001, but few today talk about it going out of deficit anytime in the near future. In fact the chances of the United States being in the black before 2016 are very low. The problem is once we get into deficit, the kind of changes that are going to need to made to get out of deficit will not be popular with the public and few governments will be willing to take the political risk involved with raising taxes or cutting spending. At the very least, we should only post a cyclical deficit, not go into a structural deficit. For those unfamiliar with the two terms, a cyclical deficit means that when the economy as growing at its normal rate, the budget will be balanced or in surplus and it will only fall into deficit when there is below average growth. A structural deficit means there is a deficit regardless of what part of the economic cycle one is in, even during a boom. Ontario right now has a cyclical deficit whereas the United States has a structural deficit.
On the issue of spending cuts, I am all for trimming the fat, but it should be done smartly and done on what is best for the country, not what is best for the party in power. Unfortunately, the governments decisions to cut funding to political parties seems to fit the latter. For one thing, this is only $36 million, so if not coupled with cuts elsewhere, it will make hardly any difference and considering an election would cost $300 million, it would actually save more to not do this if it avoided an election than to do it. This is clearly an example of the Conservatives wanting to knee cap the opposition parties so they can establish themselves as the natural governing party. I am not opposed to cutting the political subsidies if it involves spending cuts to all discretionary spending and it is in proportion with cuts elsewhere, but I do oppose doing it on its own. For one, thing I believe a strong healthy opposition is vital for a successful democracy. One party rule is not something anyone should want regardless of their ideological leanings. Also, this does not involve one subsidizing a party that they oppose. Each party gets $1.95 for every vote they receive, so otherwise your money is going towards the party you voted for, not towards a party you may not like. In fact I would argue this is the fairest way as it ensures every vote gets equal weight rather than giving an advantage to whichever party has more wealthy donors or most likely in the current case, whichever party has the most committed base. The Tories have a strong committed base who are happy to fork over much dollars, but many of those people hold views that are outside the mainstream of Canadian politics and donate precisely to move things in their direction, whereas those closest to the centre, they are happy with the status quo and have less incentive to donate. However, regardless of what one thinks here, this is a divisive issue when now is the time for parties to work together and now is the worst time to introduce divisive policies. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and many in his party do not know how to work with those with different views which I think if anything is just as big a problem as their views in themselves. If Harper held the same views as he does, but was more willing to work with those with different views, I would have a far less negative view of him.
As for what will happen, I think there are three possibilities. The most likely is one party blinks. This could be either by having 11 members not show up so it passes or the Tories realizing the opposition is serious about bringing down the government and realizing it could mean a coalition of the opposition without an election will cause them to back down. The other possibility is the government is defeated and we go to another election. This seems highly unlikely and I doubt any party actually wants this, but accidents do happen and it is quite possible we could get an election no one wants. I suspect much of the campaign won't be on the issues, but rather who to blame for causing an unnecessary election. The final possiblity which I think is more likely than the second is the opposition parties agree to back the Liberals and they are then able to go to the governor general and ask her to let the Liberals form the government. This would be unprecedented since although this has been done before in Ontario in 1985, David Peterson won the popular vote and had only 4 seats less than the Progressive Conservatives. With the Liberals having only half as many seats as the Tories, 26% of the popular vote, this would be entering unchartered waters. In fact I cannot think of any Western democracy where a party that finished 12% behind the first place party formed government. There are cases of the winning party getting less than 26% of the popular vote, but these are countries with far more parties than we have. For example, in the Netherlands, the governing party almost always gets under 30% of the popular vote, but there they have around 10 parties with seats, so a totally different scenario than in Canada. Never mind all of those that have had governing parties who win under 30% use proportional representation not first past the post. In addition, I highly doubt the Tories really want this since this would allow Dion to become prime-minister and considering how low they set the expectations of him, if he does a half decent job he might just win next time around, so this just might be a case of where Harper's ego ended up blowing up in his face.
For the Liberals, I would make clear that all members will be present for the vote, so the Tories cannot count on 11 members having the diplomatic flu. I would also make clear that we are willing to back the government if they agree to remove the plan to cut funding to political parties and promise to work cooperatively with the opposition an putting together a stimulus plan for the spring budget. In minority governments, all parties have to make compromises and this is a reasonable one and if the Tories agree to it, we back the update, if they don't we vote against it and accept whatever the outcome is.
As we enter a recession, now is time to put partisan interests aside and put the interests of the country and its people first and partisan interest lasts. We can get more done by working together rather than apart. In the US, both McCain and Obama in the last election talked about times when they reached across the aisle and throughout the world, parties of different political stripes are putting aside their narrow partisan interest. Unfortunately that is not happening here in Canada. I am not oppose to the fact the Tories do not include an economic stimulus at the moment, since in crisis like these I would rather the government take their time to consult and look things over carefully so we can get it right. The main thing is that the government is taking the economy seriously and taking action. Unfortunately it appears the Tories are asleep at the switch and don't seem to take the situation seriously. I also believe we should do as much as possible to avoid a deficit, but not at all cost, however, if we do go into deficit, it should be as small as possible and their should be a plan to get out of it as soon as we recover. My greatest worry is that once we go into deficit it could be many years before we come out. United States had a surplus when Bush entered office in 2001, but few today talk about it going out of deficit anytime in the near future. In fact the chances of the United States being in the black before 2016 are very low. The problem is once we get into deficit, the kind of changes that are going to need to made to get out of deficit will not be popular with the public and few governments will be willing to take the political risk involved with raising taxes or cutting spending. At the very least, we should only post a cyclical deficit, not go into a structural deficit. For those unfamiliar with the two terms, a cyclical deficit means that when the economy as growing at its normal rate, the budget will be balanced or in surplus and it will only fall into deficit when there is below average growth. A structural deficit means there is a deficit regardless of what part of the economic cycle one is in, even during a boom. Ontario right now has a cyclical deficit whereas the United States has a structural deficit.
On the issue of spending cuts, I am all for trimming the fat, but it should be done smartly and done on what is best for the country, not what is best for the party in power. Unfortunately, the governments decisions to cut funding to political parties seems to fit the latter. For one thing, this is only $36 million, so if not coupled with cuts elsewhere, it will make hardly any difference and considering an election would cost $300 million, it would actually save more to not do this if it avoided an election than to do it. This is clearly an example of the Conservatives wanting to knee cap the opposition parties so they can establish themselves as the natural governing party. I am not opposed to cutting the political subsidies if it involves spending cuts to all discretionary spending and it is in proportion with cuts elsewhere, but I do oppose doing it on its own. For one, thing I believe a strong healthy opposition is vital for a successful democracy. One party rule is not something anyone should want regardless of their ideological leanings. Also, this does not involve one subsidizing a party that they oppose. Each party gets $1.95 for every vote they receive, so otherwise your money is going towards the party you voted for, not towards a party you may not like. In fact I would argue this is the fairest way as it ensures every vote gets equal weight rather than giving an advantage to whichever party has more wealthy donors or most likely in the current case, whichever party has the most committed base. The Tories have a strong committed base who are happy to fork over much dollars, but many of those people hold views that are outside the mainstream of Canadian politics and donate precisely to move things in their direction, whereas those closest to the centre, they are happy with the status quo and have less incentive to donate. However, regardless of what one thinks here, this is a divisive issue when now is the time for parties to work together and now is the worst time to introduce divisive policies. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and many in his party do not know how to work with those with different views which I think if anything is just as big a problem as their views in themselves. If Harper held the same views as he does, but was more willing to work with those with different views, I would have a far less negative view of him.
As for what will happen, I think there are three possibilities. The most likely is one party blinks. This could be either by having 11 members not show up so it passes or the Tories realizing the opposition is serious about bringing down the government and realizing it could mean a coalition of the opposition without an election will cause them to back down. The other possibility is the government is defeated and we go to another election. This seems highly unlikely and I doubt any party actually wants this, but accidents do happen and it is quite possible we could get an election no one wants. I suspect much of the campaign won't be on the issues, but rather who to blame for causing an unnecessary election. The final possiblity which I think is more likely than the second is the opposition parties agree to back the Liberals and they are then able to go to the governor general and ask her to let the Liberals form the government. This would be unprecedented since although this has been done before in Ontario in 1985, David Peterson won the popular vote and had only 4 seats less than the Progressive Conservatives. With the Liberals having only half as many seats as the Tories, 26% of the popular vote, this would be entering unchartered waters. In fact I cannot think of any Western democracy where a party that finished 12% behind the first place party formed government. There are cases of the winning party getting less than 26% of the popular vote, but these are countries with far more parties than we have. For example, in the Netherlands, the governing party almost always gets under 30% of the popular vote, but there they have around 10 parties with seats, so a totally different scenario than in Canada. Never mind all of those that have had governing parties who win under 30% use proportional representation not first past the post. In addition, I highly doubt the Tories really want this since this would allow Dion to become prime-minister and considering how low they set the expectations of him, if he does a half decent job he might just win next time around, so this just might be a case of where Harper's ego ended up blowing up in his face.
For the Liberals, I would make clear that all members will be present for the vote, so the Tories cannot count on 11 members having the diplomatic flu. I would also make clear that we are willing to back the government if they agree to remove the plan to cut funding to political parties and promise to work cooperatively with the opposition an putting together a stimulus plan for the spring budget. In minority governments, all parties have to make compromises and this is a reasonable one and if the Tories agree to it, we back the update, if they don't we vote against it and accept whatever the outcome is.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 5:32 PM
2 Comments:
If the Conservatives lose this and the opposition forms a coalition, the Libs will have some very serious explaining to do about teaming up with the separartists in the BQ.
Instead of whining, why don't the Libs fundraise? Is putting their collective snout in the public trough the only way they can survive. because if so...
Larry - My understanding is the Liberals will only form a coalition with the NDP and simply rely on the Bloc for support, still I agree this is extremely risky and if I were a Liberal I would try and find a way to see the budget altered enough that they could support it. The NDP+Liberals only have 114 seats vs. the Tories 143 seats and while true they won more votes I don't think you could automatically assume 1+1 = 2. As for the fundraising, I am not oppose to changing it if it is phased in over time so parties can adjust, but it is more the way Harper went about it. We probably wouldn't be in this mess had it not been for this. And since the opposition will look silly if they now support the government and think a defeat of the government can only be avoided if they change their economic update enough to satisfy one of the opposition parties.
Post a Comment
<< Home