Liberals hand out tax gifts ahead of looming Christmas election

Liberals hand out tax gifts ahead of looming Christmas election

November 14, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - A Liberal government on day-to-day life support rolled out six years worth of largesse Monday, hoping $29 billion in promised tax cuts will help Canadian voters forget the sponsorship scandal.

Staring into the abyss of a threatened holiday season election, Prime Minister Paul Martin turned his government's fall economic statement into a full-blown mini-budget and Liberal campaign parachute. It is a blindingly obvious document.

Starting with what Finance Minister Ralph Goodale counts as an underlying $13.4-billion surplus in 2005-06, the Liberals say they'll shower voters with retroactive tax breaks totalling $5.3 billion this fiscal year alone.

...

The combined opposition parties will present a motion this week in the Commons asking Martin to voluntarily call an election in early January for a mid-February vote. The Liberals have already stated they won't respect such a majority measure, prompting opposition threats to defeat the government on non-confidence next week. That would cast the country into a Christmas campaign, culminating in a likely election date of Jan. 9.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/news/shownews.jsp?content=n111439A

Oh . . . Canada. Same continent, different universe.

You have a budget surplus! Wow! Wanna buy some T-bills?

not helped by members of their own party dipping into the cookie jar. It wasn't good enough to be the majority with the governing ability to do the right thing for Canada. They did alot of good but their star is waning and like here in the US, voters want change whether is change for the right or wrong reasons.

shortly after the Christmas season. They are happy to wait until the final Gomery Commission report is in at the end of Februrary which would mean an election in early April most likely. Woe be those who will force an election earlier than that. It could actually bring about a Liberal majority because Canadians will be ticked at the opposition parties for forcing them to the polls in the dead of winter.

I've voted NDP every time I've voted in my life, but if they pull the plug along with the Cons, they lose my vote....

how constructive

Frankly, I hope the election comes sooner rather than later so I'm not constantly compelled to click on DU and see what inane noise the Liberals and their fellow travellers hereabouts are making next.

No, not really. I'll take governance over most anything, really, right now. But it's hardly likely we're going to get any of that from the vapid Martin.

Yeah, I don't think my party should bring the bastards down. But everybody knows it's damned if we do, damned if we don't. Everybody knows that. Everybody has always known that. For every voter who swears to vote against us if we bring the government down, there's one who swears to vote against us if we prop the government up. How many of them would actually have voted for us on a sunny day in June three years from now, or did vote for us this year -- who knows, eh?

What kind of a fool votes for a party to govern for the next 3 to 5 years based on who brought down the government s/he didn't want in the first place ... well, I just dunno. Do people really vote by snit? Or do people just come up with the most weird and wonderful "reasons" for how they vote, and keep an assortment handy to pull out when needed?

I'll vote Liberal before I let the Gay-hating Cons get in... If that's voting "by snit", then I'm all for it...

Do you actually prefer a Con Government over a Liberal Government?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

strategic voting is that it doesn't work. I watched it in the last election, in Toronto. Doesn't work.

Don't make me laugh.

Martin is a fiscal conservative - a little too conservative for my taste but I can live with it.

The Conservative party (or whatever they're called this week - I can't keep track) is simply a bunch of Republican lap dogs - getting their orders directly from the United States Religious Right.

They have to keep changing their name as voters figure this out.

Conservative "good governance"?

Who said that? Are you hearing voices that aren't there?

Now, we could consider what *I* said, and see whether your post has anything to do with that.

Maybe compound sentences confuse you. Let's distill the essence. Here it is:

I hope the election comes sooner rather than later.
No, not really. I'll take governance over most anything, really, right now.

Oh look. I'd RATHER have GOVERNANCE than an ELECTION.

Did I say "good governance", for starters? Nopers.

Is there some conceivable way that we would get governance by the Conservatives WITHOUT an ELECTION? Well, maybe, but not one that seems to concern us here.

So, like, really blatantly obviously, what I was saying was that I'd rather have GOVERNANCE by the LIBERALS than an ELECTION. Bloody duh. Since I don't want an election at all, there is no way outside of the twelfth dimension that what I said could have been interpreted as referring to "Conservative 'good governance'."

So, all in all -- what the fuck are you talking about? Or did you maybe accidentally click on my post when you meant to talk to someone else altogether? Am I being too harsh? Have I had this done to me twenty times in the last week? If you don't want the annoyance, feel free to pass it down the line.

Let me summarize for you.

(1) I don't want an election. Not now, not next year.

(2) In the event that there is an election, I will vote NDP, because I live in a riding that is currently NDP and that there is no chance in hell will become Conservative.

(2) If I lived in a riding in which the race was between a Liberal and a Conservative, I would consider my options carefully. If the country looked like it was heading for a majority Liberal government, I might actually just vote Conservative, depending on how foul my local candidate was. I hate Liberal majority governments, and flipping even one seat to the Conservatives might make a Liberal minority, and that would likely put the NDP back in a position to do good. You see? A vote for the Conservatives would be a vote for the NDP, and for the side of right. Complicated, eh? On the other hand, I might just stay home.

The Conservative party (or whatever they're called this week - I can't keep track) is simply a bunch of Republican lap dogs - getting their orders directly from the United States Religious Right.

Yeah, well, that sure is the Liberal Party line, it seems.

Always sounds to me like it's Liberals trying to USAmericanize Canadian politics when I hear it, though.

That's fine. By your bitching and screaming I have to assume you want "good governance" - a fine Canadian value (but usually pronounced "good government" which may not be the same thing).

If the country looked like it was heading for a majority Liberal government, I might actually just vote Conservative,

...and if all your friends or running dogs do the same thing...?

I think I've proven my point. You're in favour of "Conservative good governance" - a contradiction in terms.

If you tell me, I'll try harder to explain.

I don't want an election. I want bloody Parliament, and all of the parties and people that make it up, to get on with governing the damned country. That is what they -- all of them -- were elected to do.

I didn't waste a lot of boring hours watching people vote and count ballots because it's my favourite way to get out of working. And I don't want to have to do it more often than necessary. And right now, it is completely UNNECESSARY. There is no need for an election. There is no justification for an election.

I hate and loathe the Liberal Party -- but it was ELECTED, because people who knew exactly what they were voting for voted for it. I don't demand that I get another kick at that particular can every six months. The bloody voters elected the bloody Liberal Party, and all the other parties they elected, so let them live with it. Let them sit down and shut up and let the parties they elected to govern the country (yeah, I know, the MPs they elected to govern the country) just govern the damned country.

Do you actually have some kind of problem with any of this? Could you have spared yourself some wear and tear on your fingertips and eyeballs if you'd just read what I wrote in the first place / acknowledge that you'd read what I wrote in the first place?


If the country looked like it was heading for a majority Liberal government, I might actually just vote Conservative, ...
...and if all your friends or running dogs do the same thing...?

I dunno ... did you miss that first bit? Here you go again:

IF THE COUNTRY LOOKED LIKE IT WAS HEADING FOR A MAJORITY LIBERAL GOVERNMENT

See? And remember how our governments are determined by the number of seats they get? Now, if my friends were located in ridings that the NDP did not have a hope of winning -- THAT BEING THE PREMISE FOR THE ACTION I DESCRIBED -- and they all did the same thing as me, then hmm, gee, there might end up being a Conservative government. Frankly, I wouldn't expect much to change if that happened.

Do watch out for running dogs, now.

You're in favour of "Conservative good governance" - a contradiction in terms.

And you have just made one of the risibly and nauseatingly false statements that I grow accustomed to seeing around here.

Is it a lack of basic education or a lack of basic morals that prompts people to behave like this?

Is it a lack of basic education or a lack of basic morals that prompts people to behave like this?

...which I prefer over insults and slander.

I've heard you loud and clear that you don't want an election.

I'm merely pointing out how "strategic voting" can backfire if too many people get cute and try to do it the same time.

I've worked for Elections Canada.

A Conservative vote is a Conservative vote (at least in this country).

You've already admitted you would vote Conservative in certain circumstances.

What part of this don't you get?

I'm merely pointing out how "strategic voting" can backfire if too many people get cute and try to do it the same time.

Your attentions are needed down in the Canada Forum, where your little Liberal chums are busy TELLING EVERYONE TO VOTE STRATEGICALLY.

Oh, but by that, they mean VOTE FOR THE LIBERAL PARTY, so that's okay then.

What don't YOU get? I don't WANT to vote for the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party and Liberals make me puke.

A Conservative vote is a Conservative vote (at least in this country).

And A LIBERAL VOTE is A LIBERAL VOTE. Getting it yet?

You've already admitted you would vote Conservative in certain circumstances.

I haven't ADMITTED a fucking thing, Mr. Smartypants Wannabe Lawyer. I had never denied the thing in question, and the thing in question is not morally reprehensible. In point of fact, I have OFTEN recounted, on this very site, how I DID vote Conservative in an election in the early 1970s, because I HATED LIBERALS then as much as I do now. And I voted Liberal in the last Ontario election because I hated the provincial Conservatives more than the provincial Liberals.

If the PCs had won that 70s election, there would have been no backfire. I would have got what I wanted -- the Liberals out.

Yes indeed, if NDP voters, or Liberals who like Liberal minority governments, voted en masse for Conservatives in the next election, we might get a Conservative government. I reckon that's all likely to happen sometime in that other dimension.

Your "logic" may indeed be "simple", in which case education probably wouldn't help. I'll still suggest a refresher course in morality, because your "logic" so far has produced nothing but false statements in an unpleasant attempt at character assassination.

for what other Liberals are doing in another forum.

I don't like strategic voting by Liberals either - it ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"simple", in which case education probably wouldn't help

OK, NOW you're insulting me.

Sorry, fella, I do logic for a living, and I fail to understand the morality of bullying.

Always sounds to me like it's Liberals trying to USAmericanize Canadian politics when I hear it, though.

Canadian politics is a multi-party system consisting primarily of the ruling party going about its business while occasionally throwing bones to the NDP and Quebec. Sometimes they just get too greedy.

I never thought I'd see the NDP in cahoots with Cons and seperatists.

Nobody really wants an election, but nobody can back down either. Harper may feel he has nothing to lose - once the Gomery business is over in the spring, he doesn't have much else. The NDP are afraid of being too close to the Liberals, but they don't want a portion of their voters to go to the Liberals to prevent a Conservative minority. On the other hand, they certainly don't want a Conservative government either. The Liberals want to wait until spring, but they may not have the final say.

It will be interesting when it all shakes out.

until it became another mouthpiece for the Conservatives/Religious right. Now I can't line my birdcage with it. It's so full of shit it won't absorb any more.

Been caught in their own trap.

Canada and the UK have worked out the 'safe district' strategy a lot better than those in the US have.


There are districts where you can afford to vote NDP because the Tories are a distant third in voter registration and there are districts where you can't afford to vote anything but Liberal.

Canadians and Brits, the only two nations to not have any type of proportional representation system understand this, that's why we don't have a Tory government anywhere as a result of the last two elections in both countries.

The US, unfortunately does not, which is why so many idiots voted for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000, the one time their vote might actually have made a difference. Then again, Harris might have rigged it whatever happened, but it would have been nice to see her job made that much harder... now votes in Florida don't even count...



Canada, don't let the Tories in, accept 'Liberty'Vote machines to tabulate votes, and lose your democracy, the way America has.

We already have voting machines in provincial and local elections, but they're paper-based.

but you can tell by the last election breakdowns the composition of a riding's rough party makeup.

a holiday vote that is...


a no matter....

I'll vote for Ken Dryden again....

Oh good, you found me. And not a minute too soon. The election campaign has begun. Here's your briefing.

You're forgiven if you missed last week's election launch. The opposition parties thought they were delaying the campaign. They didn't want a Christmas election, so Jack Layton came up with a plan. The opposition will team up later this month to demand that the Liberals drop the writ early next year for an election slightly later next year. It's a delayed-action confidence vote. Oliver Cromwell in a time-release capsule: "Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. Just not quite yet. In the name of God, can you stick around until after the Boxing Day sales?"

But even when they vote together, the opposition parties can't repeal natural laws. They can't make water run uphill, and they can't make a Liberal run later. The core operations of a Liberal campaign had kicked into high gear before Layton's jaw stopped moving. Those operations can be divided into promises, horror stories, and photo ops. You'd better go pick the kids up from daycare, because Paul Martin will be there in 20 minutes with a camera crew.

One last thing. The fourth Liberal theme I identify above -- the gullibility of New Democrat voters -- has bugged me for a long time. I don't write much about it lately because (full disclosure) my girlfriend now works for the NDP. But what the heck: if you like the New Democrats but you vote for the Liberals to stop Harper, you profoundly deserve to wind up with a Conservative MP. You're just as likely to wind up with a Liberal who won't do a thing about your issues until he suckers you in the next election. One question we're about to answer is whether the opportunists are the only people in this country with the courage of their convictions.

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columnists/article.jsp?content=20051121_115703_115703

Good one. A few more pieces that certainly ring true hereabouts:

the Liberal party's ancient campaign themes, which worked a wonder in the last three election campaigns: (1) fear of Alberta; (2) fear of social conservatism, except when practised by Liberals; (3) an increasingly rickety claim to defending national unity in Quebec; (4) the near-infinite gullibility of New Democrat voters.

... If Martin were against private health care, he'd designate Jean Charest as Public Health Care Enemy No. 1.

... On social conservatism, the Liberals benefit from the massive Canadian pro-choice consensus -- and the eagerness of some of my colleagues to spend an entire campaign hunting down an anti-abortion Conservative candidate, while leaving anti-abortion Liberals alone.

Liberals leading from the rear especially on all that "social liberalism" stuff, just like I was just saying the other day ... not that the notion was original.

And a whole lot of people, the media included, falling for the Watch out! There's a Conservative bogeyman under the bed! diversionary tactics that Liberals use so well.

As to the gullibility of NDP voters ... well ... depends how you define an NDP voter and "NDP voters". If you include everyone who once voted NDP, yeah, some of them are indeed a gullible lot, pretty much by definition, because the rest of the time they're voting Liberal. I might tend to call them Liberal voters who occasionally want to teach the Liberals a lesson. The Liberals learn the lesson well, apparently, because the voters in question are generally brought back into the fold next time around, not having learned a damned thing themselves.

Fighting the last war is supposed to be bad military strategy. But what if the last war was only last year, and the combatants and the battlefields are all but unchanged? That's the situation federal political parties find themselves in during the current ßurry of pre-election positioning and posturing. With spring 2004's campaign so fresh in their memories, their tacticians can hardly be faulted for looking back at it as they brace for the rematch that opposition leaders are scheming to trigger in early January, and the Prime Minister is hoping to put off until late February. In fact, the hard lessons of the election in which Paul Martin eked out his present minority are inevitably dominating all their strategies for next time out. And the biggest one that the Liberals and Conservatives learned, according to key advisers to both parties' leaders, is that playing rough works -- especially when it comes to election advertising.

Top strategists leave little doubt about the main thing they took to heart concerning voter behaviour last time around, and it doesn't have much to do with democracy's uplifting side. "Voters just didn't respond to positive messages, but they had a hunger for negative ads," said one senior Liberal, who asked not to be named. An inßuential Tory election planner agreed, and said the key strategic question for Stephen Harper's campaign team is how tough they can risk making their own ads in the face of the expected Liberal onslaught. Some Conservatives want to counterpunch as hard as possible, but others are warning they must be careful not to come across as angry right-wingers. "We've put a lot of effort into the way Stephen talks and acts to minimize this angry-guy thing that gets laid on him, and on the whole party," said the Tory insider.

No wonder Jack Layton, while claiming to be in the driver's seat last week, looked like he was worried about being run off the road. He has to be concerned that any NDP campaign pitch might be lost in the din of a clash between the big parties as they amplify the harshest notes of the last campaign. Still, Layton took centre stage, at least brießy, with his proposal for an unorthodox ousting of the Martin minority: the three opposition parties would vote on Nov. 24, not to defeat the Liberal government immediately, but to let it linger until after Christmas, setting an early January start for the campaign. Not surprisingly, Martin declined to meekly allow his government to become a mouse to be worried by three cats until they are ready to dispatch it at a time of their choosing.

Sustained NDP salvos on health and Tory assaults on ethics might create an opposition pincer movement against the Liberals. Martin will counter with a classic bid to vilify the Conservatives, creating a climate of fear to drain off NDP support in the key theatres like suburban Ontario and urban British Columbia. For Liberals, the task is to create a campaign from the outset that echoes their last-ditch, hard-hitting rally last year. For the Tories and NDP, the challenge is to prevent the Liberals from playing them off against each other. One thing all parties share is a grim, no-nonsense view of the task at hand. Whenever it comes, get ready for a contest that's more about invective than inspiration -- with the Liberals as tough as they can be, the Tories as tough as they dare be, and the NDP just trying to tough it out.

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20051121_115794_115794

(Part 2 of 3 parts)