Conservative minority government

[xFusilier]

The gun registry had very little to do with the conservatives victory.  People who saw firearms control as the single biggest issue, have been voting Reform/CCRAP/Conservative in every election since 1995 and probably earilier than that.  The story of this election was not that the Conservatives won, but that the Liberals lost, it was Paul Martins election to loose and he did so through the quality of his campaign.  The only thing that Harper managed to do differently was keep a lid on the paleo-cons in the party, who cost him a fair number of Ontario votes in the last election.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Don't forget a Speaker must be chosen.  The minimum to pass a bill will be 154, not 155.

All of the 5 key points should be palatable to one or more of the opposition parties; the only one I see having deadlock potential is the difference over how child care should be supported.  Harper doesn't have to implement the whole CPC platform in the first year; all he has to do to solidify the image of the CPC as a moderate, competent, and trustworthy party is pursue those 5 main points.

The opposition parties and their supporters, despite all that has been and is being said and written, are not worried that the CPC are going to govern as immoderate ideologues.  Their collective worry is that the CPC will _not_ govern as immoderate ideologues.  Once the monster under the bed is gone, they will have to come up with real and practical ideas.

 

[Koenigsegg]

Some people are saying PC, wrong party.  Thye PC is dead, it is now the Conservative Party of Canada.  The Reformers merged (ahem, took over) the PC party after the Mulroney fiasco, and was going to call the party CRAP (I dont kid), but then realised that that would be a huge mistake, and decided to call the new party the Conservative Party of Canada.  They did this to get more votes, and to to trick some people into thinking they were voting for the long lived, experienced PC party.  Apparently, their plan worked.
Harper was a reformist, and after the merger, there was only something like 5 conservatives in the entire party.  Now though, I believe that more are coming back now that the new party is competent.
I would be watching for the Conservatives to change their platform once in office.  I am not saying they will of course, just given the two parties that formed this one, it could be a possibility.  Who knows, if this happens, it could be for the better.

 

[TCBF]

"I don't believe the gun registry was the issue that got the Liberals out. Those gun owners were around during the last few elections. They need to just look at a more efficient way of running it."

There is no efficient way of running it.  For every car in Canada - there is a gun - 18,000,000 of them.  Try registering all of our cars out of a fishing village in NB...

"The gun registry had very little to do with the conservatives victory.  People who saw firearms control as the single biggest issue, have been voting Reform/CCRAP/Conservative in every election since 1995 and probably earilier than that.  The story of this election was not that the Conservatives won, but that the Liberals lost, it was Paul Martins election to loose and he did so through the quality of his campaign.  The only thing that Harper managed to do differently was keep a lid on the paleo-cons in the party, who cost him a fair number of Ontario votes in the last election."

- A common fallacy.  Those are the core/base votes upon which right of center parties fail when they forget their roots.  Those are the votes that formed Reform after Mulroney stabbed the right wing of his party in the back.  Those are the votes that backed Ross Perot and caused Bush Senior to lose to (edit: added Clinton), because Bush folded on gun control.

When right of Commie parties forget their foundations, they get kicked out real fast. 

If the Conservatives have learned this, we will soon see.

Phase 1: Re-educate the bureaucracy.  "Adapt - or else."

Tom

Edit: Thanks for the tweak.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Carter?

 

[RangerRay]

I agree with a_majoor.  The Tories should be able to get their 5 priorities passed without too much trouble.  If the opposition brings down the government over these sensible, moderate and mostly popular policies, they have to face an angry electorate.  Not to mention all the parties are broke.

If Harper plays his cards right (which I'm sure he will), the government should last 2 to 3 years, during which time the Conservatives can prove to Canadians that they aren't the "scary" ideologues that they were fooled into believing they were.

8)

 

[rifleman]

There is no efficient way of running it.  For every car in Canada - there is a gun - 18,000,000 of them.  Try registering all of our cars out of a fishing village in NB...

?? Maybe I'm wrong but we register our cars already ??.

 

[Inch]

?? Maybe I'm wrong but we register our cars already ??.

That is true, they are all registered, but it's not all done out of Mirimichi NB. It's done in thousands of Transportation Ministry offices across the country.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I predict that the Libs and the Cons are more likely to commiserate on policy frequently than the Cons and NDP.

Phase 1: Re-educate the bureaucracy.  "Adapt - or else."

Bad idea - if you want anything to get done and services to run properly, you leave the bureaucracy alone. A newbie government telling the bureaucracy how to run itself is like telling your grandmother how to suck eggs or a mother in labour telling the doctor how to peform the delivery - neither makes much sense and both are a recipe for disaster.

 

[xFusilier]

- A common fallacy.  Those are the core/base votes upon which right of center parties fail when they forget their roots.  Those are the votes that formed Reform after Mulroney stabbed the right wing of his party in the back.  Those are the votes that backed Ross Perot and caused Bush Senior to lose to (edit: added Clinton), because Bush folded on gun control.

Your base does not get you elected to power - as witnessed by conservatives (in what ever permutation) failing to form the government over 5 general election.  It might cause you to loose an election, usually only once because in terms of conservatives it usually works that conservatives abandon a party that isn't conservative enough which usually results in a liberal party getting elected

 

[a_majoor]

Phase 1: Re-educate the bureaucracy.  "Adapt - or else."

This is the source ot the real problem for Prime Minister Harper. Our Federal Bureaucracy is not apolitical, and many other organs of government, the appointed Senate and the Appointed courts are also implicitly or explicitly pro Liberal. Even if each and every individual was as pure as new, wind driven snow, they were all appointed by Chretien, Martin and coy on the basis of being friends or at least being in close agreement with the aims of the Liberal Party, so certainly share a different world view than the new government.

Since the Liberal Party ruled through the gross abuse of patronage, favors and a place at the trough, there will be a percentage of people who are not only hostile to the Conservatives, but also in a position to obstruct them. Perhaps a thorough purge is exactly what will be needed to bring the entire system of government accountability back to life.

(edited to correct spelling)

 

[Gunnar]

Some people are saying PC, wrong party.  Thye PC is dead, it is now the Conservative Party of Canada.

Not quite.  The Progressive Canadian Party has continued in the liberal traditions of the PCs.  Thankfully, they no longer call themselves Conservative, at least officially.

They did this to get more votes, and to to trick some people into thinking they were voting for the long lived, experienced PC party.  Apparently, their plan worked.

Well, anyone who was "tricked" by this doesn't have the brains to watch national TV news programmes.  The change, including the CRAP gaffe, was widely reported.  If anything, the Progressive Canadian party are "tricking" people by appearing on ballots as PC, when they have received virtually NO coverage by any media network.

Harper was a reformist, and after the merger, there was only something like 5 conservatives in the entire party.  Now though, I believe that more are coming back now that the new party is competent.

After the merger, and the subsequent defections by Liberals calling themselves Conservative, the party was entirely conservative.  I certainly hope none of the "Progressive" Conservatives (i.e., liberals in blue ties) come  back.  They were what led to the PC party losing its  support base, as detailed above by other posters.

I would be watching for the Conservatives to change their platform once in office.  I am not saying they will of course, just given the two parties that formed this one, it could be a possibility.  Who knows, if this happens, it could be for the better.

Wow.  Pure propaganda.  Unsubstantiated, unsupported suggestions which you back away from by saying "it could happen".

I would be watching for the Conservatives to save all of Canada from alien invasion and give everyone a free kitten.  I'm not saying they will of course, just given the hard work they put in representing Canadian beef interests in the US, it could be a possibility.  Who knows, if this happens, it could be for the better...

 

[xFusilier]

.  If anything, the Progressive Canadian party are "tricking" people by appearing on ballots as PC, when they have received virtually NO coverage by any media network.

Ballots have the name of the party in full written under the candidates name.  Seeing as the Conservatives have been campaigning as Conservative for the past two elections as Conservative, I doubt anyone mixed up "Progressive Canadian Party" with "Conservative Party".

 

[Koenigsegg]

I said the party itself was dead, I did not say the people who were in it did not continue their political views into another party.
Funny, how the conservatives spoke of their momentary decision to call the new party the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance the word Party was added unofficially (CCRAP) but the "Party" was catchy, and natural to say.  The media, for the most did indeed add the word Party, but the party members themselves have called the party CCRAP.
Also, I said one should watch, I never originally said that it would happen, So I did not back away from anything, I was clarifying my comment.  What I was getting at was to watch for them to drop some of their more major points that attracted votes.  I am well aware this happens all the time, But many people are saying how the Conservative are the be all and end all of more recent Canadian politics.  If the party pushes such important points aside, many people will be taken aback, like they never expected it.  The Conservatives are following up after a scandled government, and who knows what shape the books are really in.  Also, if anyone paid attention to anytime Harper was asked questions, he would not give a 100% precise answer, and his views changed (like most politicians) for region to region.  Several times TV hosts have had to say "You did not answer the question" and then Harper would reply, not answering the question again.  He always said things were a possibility (which is the right move) but it also leads to giving the party a chance to drop points, and when the people of Canada say "Hey, you said you would do this" the government can claim no responsibility for said cuts as they stated that they would "try", it was a "possibility", "We promise that we could", "We are determined to", and my personal favourite "well the Liberals did This!"
Don't take what any party says as what they ARE going to do.
Please excuse my wording of this as I have not slept in a while, I said things above in a very simple way, that does not truly express my view. and by no means does the whole thing try to express my views.
I am by no means a Liberal supporter or opponent, the same stands for my views on the Conservative party.  I am the son of people who are good friends with politicians from both parties.  I am not trying to Cut down the Conservatives, I am very sure it comes across that way.  It just seemed that since my last post was on the topic, and your rebuttal also stayed on the topic, I should keep it in the same vein.  If I had my way, I would try to basically restart the political system in Canada (not like that is going to happen), or adopt a more European, namely German voting system, as it could help us over here.

 

[TCBF]

"Your base does not get you elected to power - as witnessed by conservatives (in what ever permutation) failing to form the government over 5 general election.  It might cause you to loose an election, usually only once because in terms of conservatives it usually works that conservatives abandon a party that isn't conservative enough which usually results in a liberal party getting elected"

- You missed my logic:  when the sunshine voters who walk in the door of the polling station and THEN decide to vote are not overwhelmingly on your side the absolute LAST thing you want to do is piss of the people who stay with you through thick and thin for idealogical reasons.  Pee off the 3,000,000 gun owners, and a new Reform will emerge.  This time where it CAN make a difference - at the provincial level in Alberta.

Watch Ralph Klein try to slow this somehow.

Tom

 

[Gunnar]

He always said things were a possibility (which is the right move) but it also leads to giving the party a chance to drop points, and when the people of Canada say "Hey, you said you would do this" the government can claim no responsibility for said cuts as they stated that they would "try", it was a "possibility"

I always sorta figured that for truthfulness, actually....because he has priorities, 5 of them, not 75000 like Martin...and he will look at a lot of things...but asking him now about the tax credit for left-handed pipers who only drink drambuie on page 74 of the tax code (footnote 7) isn't going to get you much of an answer...how the hell would he know?  He'll look at it, if it's important, and get back to you.

And No, Pipers, there is no such exemption!

So basically, you're not being cynical about the Conservatives, you're being cynical about politicians in general...I get it, but don't agree.  Reform was formed by angy people who wanted to clean up government...I'd like to give them at least one administration before power corrupts them too...;-)

Maybe I'm still too young and starry-eyed.

 

[a_majoor]

Since one of the major initiatives of the Conservatives involves tax reform, here is some ammunition for them:

The 2003 Tax Cut on Capital Gains Entirely Paid for Itself
I’m not just saying it — CBO is.

On Thursday the Congressional Budget Office released its annual Budget and Economic Outlook, and buried in one of its nearly impenetrable tables of numbers is a remarkable story that has gone entirely unreported by the mainstream media: The 2003 tax cut on capital gains has entirely paid for itself. More than paid for itself. Way more.

To appreciate this story, we have to go back in time to January 2003, before the tax cut was enacted. Table 3-5 on page 60 in CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook published in 2003 estimated that capital-gains tax liabilities would be $60 billion in 2004 and $65 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $125 billion.

Now let’s move forward a year, to January 2004, after the capital-gains tax cut had been enacted. Table 4-4 on page 82 in CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook of that year shows that the estimates for capital-gains tax liabilities had been lowered to $46 billion in 2004 and $52 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $98 billion. Compare the original $125 billion total to the new $98 billion total, and we can infer that CBO was forecasting that the tax cut would cost the government $27 billion in revenues.

Those are the estimates. Now let’s see how things really turned out. Take a look at Table 4-4 on page 92 of the Budget and Economic Outlook released this week. You’ll see that actual liabilities from capital-gains taxes were $71 billion in 2004, and $80 billion in 2005, for a two-year total of $151 billion. So let’s do the math one more time: Subtract the originally estimated two-year liability of $125 billion from the actual liability of $151 billion, and you get a $26 billion upside surprise for the government. Yes, instead of costing the government $27 billion in revenues, the tax cuts actually earned the government $26 billion extra.

CBO’s estimate of the “cost” of the tax cut was virtually 180 degrees wrong. The Laffer curve lives!

This straight-A report card on supply-side tax-cutting was noted Thursday by Daniel Clifton of the American Shareholders Association — the man who predicted that exactly this would happen when the tax cuts were first enacted. Clifton wrote on his blog,

"a capital gains tax cut spurs the growth of new businesses, increases the wage of workers, enhances consumer purchasing power, and grows the economy at large, resulting in more overall gains to be taxed. When capital is taxed at a lower rate, any revenue losses are offset because there is more overall capital being produced, and thus more total revenue being generated."

Using the same kind of analysis, we can see that attempts to raise tax revenues by raising tax rates simply doesn’t work. Consider the massive increase in personal income-tax rates imposed by President Clinton and a Democratic Congress in 1993. Compare actual total tax revenues for the four years from 1993 to 1996 to what had been estimated by CBO in 1992 before the tax hikes took effect. Despite increasing the top tax rate on incomes by 16 percent to 28 percent, actual revenues only beat the 1992 estimate by less than 1 percent.

So what led to the gusher of tax revenues in the late 1990s that helped to put the federal budget into surplus? Simple: It was the capital-gains tax cut engineered by a Republican Congress in 1997. Compare actual total tax revenues for the three years from 1997 to 1999 to what had been previously estimated by CBO in January 1997. Despite cutting the capital-gains tax rate by 28 percent, actual total revenues beat the 1997 estimate by more than 11 percent.

These are the numbers. They don’t lie. It’s the Left that lies — just like former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin did this week in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal when he said

The proponents of supply-side theory who assert that tax cuts will wholly — or even significantly — pay for themselves (through increased growth and federal tax revenues), appear to be no more accurate now than they were in the ’90s.

The numbers show that supply-side theory is accurate now and that it was accurate in the ’90s. With the latest evidence from the CBO in hand, as Daniel Clifton says, “It’s time to make the capital gains and dividend tax cuts permanent. Congress has no excuse at this point.”

— Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your visit to his blog and your comments at don@trendmacro.com.
   
  http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200601270946.asp

The most important thing to look at is the time line; the explosion of new wealth and revenue took place in a two year period, quite enough time to make Prime Minister Harper and the Conservatives heros to milions in the short time a minority government usually sits.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

The above data is slightly misleading as it refers to the upswing in the  American economy at a time when Canada was already well on its' way in terms of fiscal performance. I repeat, this is American data, not Canadian statistics; besides the Liberals were quite responsive (during their tenure) in their efforts to improve the climate for businesses with Canadian interests. I must add the caveat that their policies were not enacted overnight but rather phased in gradually.

Simply put, those Congressional Budget office figures are mostly linked to improvements in core budget areas (contributors like defence, high tech, and manufacturing) as well as the tremendous amount of investment (at the time) in the American stock market. Capital gains reduction meant more to the American economy as it was used by their investors to continually re-invest their income without significant penalties accrued.

In Canadian terms there is no real comparison as our market capitalization is much smaller, especially when resource companies are stripped out from the equation. With a smaller market cap, there is less income accrued by the continual turnover of the same groups of stocks. 1997's tech boom spurred massive purchases by small scale investors and as these people capitalized on their gains they had to pay taxes on the income accrued. With incentives given to re-invest, these people would be more inclined to take their money and make another gamble on the stock market.

As we all know, there was a subsequent crash in the stock market (Nortel anyone) which wiped out many middle income investors and devastated many companies. This market crash precipitated interest in core investments, hence the return to dividend bearing stocks, bonds, currency speculation, and renewed interest in foreign markets (like Canada).

It is more responsible to state that an aggressive fiscal policy designed by the Bank of Canada to pre-empt significant market collapse is a significant reason for our superior economic performance over the last decade. In tandem with the BOC policies was an  upswing in resource investment which is, to this day, propelling our economy.

Suffice it to say that the Conservatives have inherited a healthy economy and given Harper's indications to address the fiscal imbalance and maintain servicing of the debt, it is likely that we will not see major reductions in Federal government income streams. As some analysts have noted (Politics with Don Newman, CBC, January 27) there still exists the possibility that the Provincial governments will seize the reduction in Fed taxes as an opportunity to boost their own. The example given today was the linkage that most provinces have between the GST and their PST's.

 

[a_majoor]

Overtaxation and Enron like accounting do not a great economy make. The reality is Canadian incomes remained stagnant for most of the 1990s, investment and productivity fell off since capital formation was choked, and much of the limited capital available was diverted to "causes" (the Billion dollar Boondoggle, Bombardier, Regional Development Funds) which devoured taxpayer wealth with little or no return. The various ideas of productivity budgets and productivity incentives under the Liberal Governments between 1993 and 2006 were laughable since they simply compounded the fundamental problem, diverting capital from its most efficient uses.

We can see a very similar problem with the EU, it is a high tax and regulatory environment with plenty of State subsidized industry, yet its economy is essentially stagnant, investment is falling and even the high tech industries the EU had hoped would lead them to economic parity with the United States are instead jumping ship and making their new investments in the United States (bypassing us BTW).

What prosperity we do have is mostly through our trade with the United States, and primarily in the resource sector. This is far to narrow a base to be comfortable with. Tax reduction will allow investors more ability to seek the highest rates of return for their dollars (more dollars to invest) and provide incentive to do so (more dollars in their pocket).

To recap, our economic performance in the 1990s stank. We lost a decade because capital was being taken from the economy and there was no incentive for people to take risks, and Canada and Canadians suffered for it. What is the opportunity cost of over a decades worth of lost compound interest? Tax cuts have proved effective all over the world, or perhaps you might suggest the reality of South Korea, Tiawan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, etc. is also "slightly misleading". The evidence is before us yet again, time to start acting in accordance to facts, not socialist fantasy.

 

[a_majoor]

This is the direction we were going under the Liberals, and a victory of of the NDP or Greens would have simply accelerated the process....

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/archives/000359.php

Counterproductive regulation
By Dr Eamonn Butler

I write this from Bratislava, where I've been lecturing to the Entrepreneurs' Association about the horrors of EU labour market regulation. With its liberal employment code and 15 percent flat tax rate, Slovakia sees itself as one of the new European tigers - a sort of European Hong Kong. They're not much pleased when Old Europe tells them they need to adopt lots more regulation and raise their tax rates so that the EU is properly 'harmonized'. Chancellor Schoeder was saying that to them just last week and it did not go down too well.

In the process, though, I've been boning up on some of the facts and figures surrounding workplace regulation. For example, one of the things that has puzzled me for a long time is why continental Europe boasts much higher productivity levels than Britain. Sometimes this is used as a reason why we should have more government intervention in research and development.

But here's the reason, as I discovered from a useful IEA paper on EU employment regulation, Regulating European Labour Markets: More Costs than Benefits? Social costs make it much more expensive to employ people in continental Europe than the UK - something approaching 60 percent more. And that means that continental businesses simply have to be more productive, just to overcome that barrier. So they make sure they employ only the most productive workers, experienced workers. They try to avoid employing anyone young, inexperienced, disabled, old, with family commitments, less-well educated... all the people we want workplace regulation to help, in fact. Look at youth unemployment on the continent, for example, and it's far higher than ours. Continental businesses also employ more part-time workers so they don't get locked into contracts.

It seems to me another case of regulation doing the opposite of the intended goal.