Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« NORMAN'S SPECTATOR | Main | February 23, Conservatism RIP »

Thursday, February 24, 2005

Where's the budget analysis

Several Shotgunners have analysis at their own sites: Occam's Carbuncle, Political Staples, Canadian Comment, Sobering Thoughts and Jay Currie. Best comment comes from Currie and is less about the budget than Stephen Harper's reaction: "Harper's position lets the Liberals off the hook.Which is dumb."

Posted by Paul Tuns on February 24, 2005 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83422758f53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where's the budget analysis:

» Opportunity Lost from Colbert's Comments
Ralph Goodale's budget yesterday was filled with the predictable handouts you would expect in a minority parliament with the majority of the benefits back-loaded beyond the expected life of the parliament. The problem is I have seen this budget b... [Read More]

Tracked on 2005-02-24 7:53:38 PM

Comments

In my view, the budget is a fiction not a fact. It is electioneering propaganda geared, not to assisting the citizens's needs but to achieve a Liberal majority. Think about it. The spending will not take place for several years! That's the key point! It's all about 'IF you keep us in power, THEN, 'this' will happen.

All the promises in this budget are just 'tales of a winter's night' and nothing more than that. It will be used, next year at the presumed election, as a campaign platform. 'Keep us in power and 'this' will happen'.

It addresses nothing, NOW; it's pure propaganda.

Posted by: ET | 2005-02-24 5:41:58 AM


Our central planners are on the verge of launching another nanny state sink hole and nobody says boo.
What we aren’t launching is a BMD to actually protect us from nut jobs like Kim Jong-Il. Just say boo to thugs.

So just for the record - boo. Ahhhh , that feels better, it’s so NICE to be Canadian.


Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-02-24 5:57:43 AM


To the contrary, nomdenet, it isn't that people aren't saying 'boo' to the Nanny State. They are demanding it! Think about Jack Layton; that's his agenda - a nanny state, with him, of course, in authoritarian power as Head Missionary..helping and soothing his Flock of Simple-Minded Parishoners (aka Canadians).

Same with the Bloc; Quebec is, after all, nothing-but a nanny state. Charest is trying to dismantle the nanny-ideology but Quebecers have been raised to think that they are forever-children and require, forever, care and ....of course...federal handouts from the rest of Canada (ROC). Try starting up your own business in Quebec; it's near impossible with the bureaucracy - and - the unions will move in to try to take over your employees...and your costs. Quebec is all about 'birth-to-death home care by the state'. You never leave home; you can become a rebellious teenager and threaten to leave, but in Quebec - you stay on the farm forever and ever and....

And there's the MSM, whether its the CBC, the Star and the G&M - all nanny state supporters. All hostile to individualism, to entrepreneurship. Instead, we have bloated bureaucracies - well paid, well-pensioned and with huge parastic unions. And endless gov't interference and huge, huge wastes of our money: aka health care; bilingualism; gun registry; day care.

Speaking of ideological purity - how about Bill Graham, thundering away in question period, when asked about 'Canadian participation in US missile defence'...ranting on about how 'Canada will decide for itself,by itself, with no other country's input, for its own sake, its own sovereignty and needs".
Wow - that's quite the unilateral decision! Wasn't it just a year ago that Canada was decrying the US as 'unilateral' rather than following the Canadian ideal of 'being multilateral'????

Posted by: ET | 2005-02-24 6:45:33 AM


ET
Darn, I knew I shouldn’t have said “boo”.
Now you’ve filled my poor little Canadian head with all kinds of facts and responsibilities , now I’m going to have to think for myself. Let’s see ..

Jack and Gilles went up the Hill
To fetch a Nanny State
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And sued the Nanny State
For more Workmen’s Compensate.

Ring ring … recess is over, back to kindergarten .. bye bye

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-02-24 7:46:09 AM


With all respect to Jay, I'd say Stephen Harper is the better strategist:

"Meanwhile, senior Conservative strategists explained Harper's quick decision on the budget by saying "there's nothing in it for us to get into the brinkmanship, the percentages just aren't there."

They also said Harper concluded he was better off being criticized for propping up the government than for provoking an unpopular election.

Other Tory sources said the Bloc's frustration at Harper's position was evident. "They were ready to go (into an election) ... they're not very happy with us," said a party official."

Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-24 9:05:21 AM


As ET noted, the only thing that matters fiscally in the budget is what it does this year. The rest is just there to lend credence to whatever fiction is on offer from the Liberals during the next election. Whether the promises will be honoured if the Liberals win a majority is a question most likely to be answered unfavourably.

And as Norman noted, now was not the time for the CPC to provoke an election; the accompanying risk is simply accepting the requirement to present Canadians with a credible, responsible, and conservative/classical liberal fiscal vision during the next campaign.

Posted by: lrC | 2005-02-24 2:40:29 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.