Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Sounds like its pretty clear...

It has finally become a major issue...will there be a coalition government if the conservatives win a minority?

As it turns out...probably. It seems like voters have two options in this election: conservative or coalition government of liberals, NDP and separatists, led by Ignatieff.

Yes, Harper is a little intense. You may not agree with his social-political ideals, but why not let him jack up the economy for a couple years- we'll get a bit closer to eradicating our national debt and establish a solid GDP. Then we can elect a more socially responsible government to spend the earned money on programs for the general public- and they'll have the funds to do so.

Or we can elect the Liberals...who will sink Canada further and further into debt, while throwing imaginary money at problems like early childhood development and health care. The problem is, if we elect a Liberal government, we'll still have to pay all of the money back at the end of the day...all the while your taxes will rise and rise...

Am I the only one thinking of the longevity of the economy? I don't expect many young students will have any legitimate comments which promote sustainability...

6 comments:

  1. You make a very astute argument. I agree 100%... Get back on track then spend the money you have on more social issues and problems. If a majority Conservative Government mess up they will the the "Mulroony" turf and end up able to have their cabinet meetings in "telephone" booth.... Regards... Popa

    ReplyDelete
  2. with regards to the tory economic stewardship, I would like to remind you that they are not as conservative as they would like to say - even before the recession hit and the G20 agreed on stimulus spending, they were the highest spending conservative gov't in Canadian history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And yet the liberals complain that they aren't spending enough. Ignatieff will complain either way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would think that most right-leaning governments today would be spending more than those years ago...perhaps there is just more things to spend money on today...

    Matt, how do we get people do vote based on long-term prospects, rather than short-term handouts akin to candy bars?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its quite impossible actually, especially given the political climate the way it is. I will explain using the NDP as an example.

    The NDP used to make concrete and precise promises that they would implement if they got to power. The content of these promises didnt really matter because they knew they would never see the inside of the Prime Minister's OFfice. Pledges such as Canada's withdrawal from NATO, NORAD and NAFTA were made, as well as many others: cap-and-trade agreements without a treaty with the United States, open hostility towards the oil sands, the scrapping of foreign takeovers, raised taxes, the end of the independence of the Bank of Canada, as well as many other twerpish things such as massive subsidies for "local organic" foods.

    Now, this surge of NDP support is coming for two reasons: the personal popularity of Jack Layton, and their new centrist(ish) platform. The simplification of election platforms has been occurring since the electoral victories of Ronald Reagan (x2), Bill Clinton (x2), George W. Bush (x2), and Stephen Harper (x3 - though I may be getting ahead of myself). Simple promises are made because people vote with their guts, and not their brains. Techniques such as subliminal messaging in political ads, and the constant repetition of keywords ("Stephane Dion is not a leader", "Ignatieff: only in it for himself") now hold the sway over individual policies.

    Why? because political parties do not know what is going to happen in the next four years - will their platform be able to correspond with the realities of governance? Make vague/simple promises that are relatively easy to implement, and within 1 or two years time, political party x can claim they came through on all their promises. The Liberals and the Conservatives have experience in power and are able to manage the more radical elements of their base, something the NDP does not which I will address further.

    So what happens if the NDP forms a coalition government? There will be a "social justice" and environmental activists that will descend on Parliament Hill like the hordes of Genghis Khan expecting the promises made over the years made by the NDP to come true now that they are in the corridors of power, and it would put Jack Layton well and truly on the spot. How would he reconcile these supporters that think they are in the position to implement their radical agenda for the first time, when in reality, their flagship party would be in no position to implement them. It could be fatal.

    This is why promises in elections are relatively empty. For there to be real change, there needs to be a majority government which can push through a legislative agenda that may not be immediately popular without the concern of being voted down (like Mulroney did - to Canada's benefit).

    ReplyDelete