By moving to the political center he broke ideologically with his mentor, Pierre Trudeau, the hero and symbol of Canadian left-liberalism whose legacy was a phenomenal debt burden, high tax rates and an omnipresent public sector.Most of the current Canadian debt can be placed in the lap of conservatives. Bush is a spend and not tax conservative debt-maker as it turns out is the most un-leftist Blair. Consider the conservatives of tiny PEI, whose 135 or so million deficits of the just the last two years alone equal 1,000 bucks for every man woman and child. The average PEI income per worker for 1996 was just under $19,000 - but only half the population is in the work force so the additional debt under two years of Tory rule is actually more than 10% of average annual personal income. [They just got back in in a landslide, by the way.]
The point? It is tired to roll out the liberals create debt crap because it is simply not true. As we learned with Ontario's Tories just given the boot, they say they will run the government like a business but if they were any good at doing that they would be running businesses.
Comments
Mike - December 13, 2003 10:42 pm
I'd never say that Mulroney didn't rack up enormous debt, or that he racked up less than Trudeau. This doesn't let Trudeau off the hook though, does it? It's not a myth that Trudeau established Canada on the road to national debt.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/frt/2002/frt02_3e.html
I know the numbers, but I'm not quite sure what's behind them. The national debt certainly expanded under Mulroney, but it's my understanding -- I could be wrong -- that their operating budget matched what they brought in in revenue, and that annual deficits came largely from servicing existing debt.
Should tough decisions have been made to pay down the inherited debt (program cuts and or increased taxes?), most likely. I'm in favour of corporate and crony socialism as much as I'm in favour of state socialism.
I credit Bush for much of his foreign policy, not for his domestic spending or (now apparently relaxing) protectionism.
(btw, it appears that you're quoting me up there, when that wasn't something I wrote myself)
Alan - December 13, 2003 11:27 pm
You are right on the source of the quoted material. What I have quoted from is a passage you have - I took it - approved of by the final use of "precisely". I meant no broader implication.
Imagine, though, as you wonder, if Tories ever actually had the skill to achieve the small government low taxes dream. They never do, however - leftist like the Saskatchewan NDP did it first, even before Alberta [so drunk on its oil that it believes it has an equal seat to pretty much the balance of the country.] So if Trudeau was an early tax and spender, at least he taxed - through he spent more. Mulroney and those of his ilk blab about running a tight ship, being businessmen, etc, etc and never get it done. What conservatives do is spend but not get the revenue in. Who could run a business like that? Maybe with a friend at ACOA or daddy's fortune. How many conservatives actually come from that tradition of stagnant wealth?
Mike - December 14, 2003 7:59 am
Well, to be precise, my "precisely" refered to Debbye's comment on a Cdn PM doing what's right for Canada, although I did approve of the other comment on Trudeau; I'm pointing it out as a departure from quoting convention (quoting another blogger's comment without reference ... I suppose it did come via me, but ... whatever).
I was actually going to mention how the Sask NDP had a much better record than Bob Rae's bunch or many other prov gov'ts of any stripe. Political colours rarely matter when it comes to fiscal mgmt. Fiscal mgmt by Liberals in the 90s certainly didn't mirror fiscal mgmt in the 70s. JFK was the US's biggest tax-cutter, not Reagan or W. Bush.
I'm not a party member of any party, and hardly a Toryite. Who thinks Tories are conservatives?, except for perhaps a few key policy initiatives here and there and some so-con tripe that finds its way in.
As you and I have both mentioned (I believe), how Tories and Grits have been basically interchangeable. Even (Herron?, the other guy who opted out of the PC/CA merger this week along with Joe Clark) said that "Canadians want a national alternative, not policy (or perhaps he said 'political') alternatives". That about spells it out. Take off the home jersey, we're wearing our away sweaters tonight.
Almost time for Coronation Street, gotta run. 8-)
Alan - December 14, 2003 8:59 am
While I was thinking about that and writing my first answer above here I was also going through all the copyright law stuff and the convention in a ruling in law would be if you mention it and do not indicate disapproval, you would be taken to approve. Apart from the actual substance of what you wrote, do you take it differently, as a convention I mean?
It will be interesting to find out what this conservative merged thing turns into. I would bet that if it is too much the old Reform, many old PCs will turn Grit. As you say, economic policies in Canada are practiced by each party more in response to circumstances rather than on principle. Which may not be such a bad thing. When you get down to it, I think economic theory of any stripe is a bit of a mug's game when you look at Canada or the States or Europe all being pretty much wildly wealthy from the perspective of your average human.
Jeese - Saddam is captured and you still stick with Coronation Street. That is dedication. I haven't been able to get into it since Stan died. But I was raised to it. One of my earliest TV memories is Enid Sharples on the black and white TV in around 1966.