The Shotgun Blog
« Bastiat in Africa | Main | The Calgary Mayoral Election - Revolution or Business as Usual? »
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Ignatieff needs credibility on deficit fighting
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is trying to pose as a deficit fighter; he is positioning himself as the man who will bring back the surplus. This is good news for Canada in that both major political parties agree that the deficit is now a bad thing (even though they previously agreed that it is a good thing), but there is a problem of credibility.
Dr. Ignatieff lays claim to a Liberal heritage of deficit slaying and surpluses in the Chrétien/Martin years. The problem with such a claim is that most, if not all, the leadership of that era is gone. It would be like today’s Blue Jays assuring fans that they can win the World Series because they did it back in the early 90s. The current players matter more than the institutional history.
The current Liberal Party has to show that it is serious about deficit cutting. They have said that they have to ‘reconsider’ pass Liberal campaign promises, but does that include recent commitments such as money for those who take care of the elderly? If Dr. Ignatieff really wants to prove a dedication to ending the deficit then he needs to be honest. He needs to acknowledge that until the deficit is dealt with ANY new spending is off the table.
In a way the verdict is not yet out on the Liberal Party’s credibility on deficits. So far they have been talking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand they have been demanding an end to the deficit, on the other they have been calling for more spending. But that is pretty standard procedure for an opposition party. I am keeping an open mind for Dr. Ignatieff to demonstrate the sort of fiscal manager that he plans to be.
Now it is up to Michael Ignatieff to convince me and my fellow voters.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on October 19, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
Actually Iggy has been extremely convincing about where he stands. His party demanded that the government spend even more and wanted more bailouts. His party blocked the ending of the long gun registry, thus supporting another huge waste of money for a useless program. His party has also fought tooth and nail against any proposed program cuts or government downsizing.
In short his behaviour gives the lie to his credibility when it comes to the economy.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-10-19 10:03:57 AM
Ignatieff needs credibility, period. He's a university professor, not a statesman, and there's a reason the world isn't run by scholars.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 10:23:36 AM
Harper was given power (based on his spending promises) and turned a large surplus into a record deficit. Only a fool believes the leopard has changed his spots, he is proven pro-deficit.
Iggy we don't know yet, but it is good he is talking this way and his party is the party that did do a better job last time than the last two times the Conservatives did the job (Mulroney also set a record for the worst deficit, far worse than Trudeau). You say the people are gone, but this was not that long ago and not all have changed with them.
That said Iggy has some very conservative baggage he carries around, like is support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and drugs hence why he is not popular and that is good.
Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-19 11:21:27 AM
Sorry Smith but as I already demonstrated we know all we need to know about Iggy based on his very own track record. He, his party and the NDP are responsible for preventing the CPC from cutting cost. Your claim cannot be substantiated. I may not be a blind Harper or CPC supporter, but then neither am I blind to the facts.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-10-19 1:21:20 PM
"Mr. Ignatieff agrees. He is calling for this legislation to be repealed, even though he helped wave it through by voting for the 2009 budget. He wants to bring in a new law that frames pay equity as a fundamental human right, rather than a labour relations issue. He wants to introduce a system that would proactively seek to eliminate wage differentials between public servants deemed to be doing work of equal value — a move that would inevitably add to the federal wage bill."
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/19/john-ivison-ignatieff-offers-women-substanceless-proposals/#ixzz12qZDWFNs
Posted by: Ron | 2010-10-19 4:35:58 PM
I wonder how many really know what "equity" pay is. Most wrongly assume it is about ensuring that men and women doing the same job get the same pay. The truth is that it attempts to compare the incomparable such as female clerks with male managers. At least that is how it works in the federal Public Service. The decision that two totally different jobs with different requirements and responsibilities are work of equal value is utter non sense.
Posted by: Alain | 2010-10-19 7:46:19 PM
The Equitarians don't care if something makes sense, Alain. They only care if someone else has something they don't, which to them is the darkest injustice conceivable. Ignatieff's plan is designed specially to appeal to urban women, who have formed the bedrock of the Liberal voter base since Trudeau.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-20 11:36:18 AM
The Liberals prevented the Conservatives from cutting costs?????
The biggest of the early costs was the Conservative election promise to pay hundreds of dollars to parents for no other reason than being parents. He chose to buy people's votes.
In the election against Martin Harper's spending promises were documented as double the NDP or Liberal promises - that by National Post which is partisan Conservative. A more logical person would say he was pushing the Liberals and NDP to increase their spending.
Harper continues pushing this hugely expensive mandatory sentencing in.
There are some items the opposition has pushed them on, and of course Harper agrees every time since he will use any amount of other people's money to buy himself power.
The only spending he has ever opposed was when in opposition, when it was Liberals spending. Opposing spending on a partisan basis hardly indicates he cares about it as policy.
Anyway your partisans, so hopeless trying to get reality into the debate.
Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-21 1:15:36 PM
"The biggest of the early costs was the Conservative election promise to pay hundreds of dollars to parents for no other reason than being parents." Mr. Smith
"Former prime minister Paul Martin is reminding Canadians that the country did have a national child-care program up and running – and the reason there isn’t one today is because it was dismantled by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
A national child-care system was unveiled this week as the centerpiece of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s future election platform – no matter how bare the fiscal cupboard is—and was immediately dismissed as too costly and unrealistic by the ruling Conservatives." Toronto Star October 21, 2010
"It's like education 100 years ago, it's like health care 40 years ago... You were fragmented, you were patchwork," said Dryden, the rookie MP who has been handed responsibility for drafting a national child care plan." cbc.ca October 25, 2004
"However, as soon as the Conservatives came to power in early 2006, they served notice that the provincial deals would lapse, to be replaced with a $100-a-month direct payment to parents for each child. Conservatives said this week that this was still the preferable system, because it gives choice to parents." Toronto Star October 21, 2010
Question: How would PM Mr. Smith and his minority government have handled this?
Posted by: Ron | 2010-10-21 2:09:34 PM
The biggest of the early costs was the Conservative election promise to pay hundreds of dollars to parents for no other reason than being parents.
Having children reaps dividends down the line, Smith. Those kids are future taxpayers and will also be able to help defray some of the cost and effort of looking after those parents when they are retired. If Canadians had more of their own children, we wouldn't have to import 300,000 immigrants a year.
In the election against Martin Harper's spending promises were documented as double the NDP or Liberal promises - that by National Post which is partisan Conservative.
Link, please.
A more logical person would say he was pushing the Liberals and NDP to increase their spending.
A logical person would compare apples to apples instead of rummaging through long-abandoned closets looking for skeletons. Your tactics bear the whiff of desperation, Smith. Is it because your Red Liberal Titanic is sinking in a sea of Tory blue?
Harper continues pushing this hugely expensive mandatory sentencing in.
Shooting them would be cheaper. Sound good?
There are some items the opposition has pushed them on, and of course Harper agrees every time since he will use any amount of other people's money to buy himself power.
And you're saying it would be different if the Liberals who did the pushing were in power?
Anyway your partisans, so hopeless trying to get reality into the debate.
The word is "you're," you fish-faced beef brain. Put down the bong and join us in the 21st century.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-21 8:45:11 PM
Shane: you start with:
"Having children reaps dividends down the line",
Socialists are always claiming spending is not spending. A Libertarian says spending is spending and this spending is not required for the proper role of government.
Given your nonsense insults I won't bother replying in detail to the rest of your silliness. Your a partisan and post lobotomy there is no hope of rational discussion.
Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-22 9:32:41 AM
Socialists are always claiming spending is not spending.
Libertarians are always claiming selfishness is not selfishness.
A Libertarian says spending is spending and this spending is not required for the proper role of government.
Libertarians can say what they want. They're not running things and never will.
Given your nonsense insults I won't bother replying in detail to the rest of your silliness.
If you want to take your delusions elsewhere, don't let me stop you.
Your a partisan and post lobotomy there is no hope of rational discussion.
You don't want a rational discussion. You want to pee in the punch bowl.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-22 11:15:14 AM
It seems crystal clear 50-60% or more of the voting public support socialist policies & big government. This majority believes, to paraphrase a famous Liberal, they are entitled to their entitlements. So, how to change this?
A national child-care system has deep support with the Left and this clearly includes Iggy & the Liberals (past & present).
As Dryden put it in 2004, "It's like education 100 years ago, it's like health care 40 years ago..." He's talking about the establishment of ANOTHER corner stone of the socialist/statist edifice, given a chance to take root it would have constituted another structural shift to the left.
Harper's move stopped this and, communicated the idea that parents choosing what's best for their kids is infinitely better than state care. Hopefully this helps some of our citizens figure out that individual choice is better than state choice.
Harper's solution is redistributive and hence not ideal but I contend it is a clear improvement over the Liberal approach.
Posted by: Ron | 2010-10-22 12:23:53 PM
Ron: I've heard the arguments about the superiority of the Conservative version of how to increase the size of government over how the Liberals do it. I don't agree there is anything superior, but I will grant this one item is debatable as some kind of lesser to avoid being diverted onto that topic in detail.
This spending spree (will total $100 billion in their 10 year plan from 2006) came in the 2006 election, where the Liberals were fresh off terms that gave them clear credibility as deficit fighters by lowering spending. The Liberals had just pulled off what the Economist listed in the 10 ten financial runarounds in the last 50 years.
People liked it and there was a huge chance to continue the trend towards smaller government like the Reform had claimed to support and what happened? Harper singlehandedly took that direction and debate and changed it to the bad old days of a bidding war for votes in which he promised twice what the Liberals or the NDP were promising.
It was not just the day care, it was billions extra for the military's new toys, billions extra for old people etc. etc..
Now people are writing about Iggy lack of credibility on the deficit, as if the Conservatives have it? An unknown is a better bet that an abject failure in my books. Better still work to forming a strong Libertarian Party - the only way to solve this since none of the major parties will.
Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-22 1:00:45 PM
Thanks for the reply Mr. Smith. Regardless of where we agree or disagree I believe society is improved when we debate each other, and where possible seek common ground.
A smaller Federal Government which does not intrude into provincial jurisdiction is my goal. Federal coercion and subsidization of provincial decision making does not improve our overall governance.
Conservative spending is of concern to me, however at this point I remain much more concerned about the Liberal Party.
In any case I appreciate this exchange.
Posted by: Ron | 2010-10-22 2:05:51 PM
Thanks:
I will continue to try to build a Libertarian Party as the only way to really improve things, and otherwise give credit where credit is due on actions, as opposed to what-ifs, with the other parties.
At this point I remain much more concerned about the conservatives actions, both here and in the U.S.. than their mainstream opposition. Given how gross I consider the competition that is saying a lot about just how bad I feel the conservative parties are.
Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-22 6:34:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.