Liberal Party of Canada Leadership

[Edward Campbell]

Cutting taxes ~ by shrinking government, is good public policy, but, very often, not very popular with the voters. Government is, broadly, in the service business and many, many of the services it provides are of direct, measurable, visible benefit to individual voters. Cutting the people who provide those service, even if the service itself is unaffected, or cutting a service is fraught with political risk.

There is a good, solid economic argument for borrowing (issuing long term bonds) to pay for the maintenance or expansion of infrastructure which has a 'service life' that is equal to or greater than the term of the bond. (A similar, but less economically sound argument can be made for borrowing to buy e.g. fleets of expensive aircraft, vehicles or warships which also have long service lives.)

 

[Brad Sallows]

We don't borrow for infrastructure.  We borrow to pay handouts.  All of the spending on defence, justice, and infrastructure comes out of the balanced part of the operating balance.

Money is fungible, even when earmarked for a particular outlay.  Borrowing "for infrastructure" merely dresses it up to ease the "infrastructure" pressure point and permit untrammeled spending elsewhere.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think what's being proposed, by e.g. David Dodge and others, is that the balanced budget should be used to fund current operations, which includes e.g. salaries and pensions and fuel for cars, ships and aircraft and, and, and ... But long term projects, by definition works and buildings but maybe also ships and airplanes, should always be funded by issuing bonds that are repayable before the end of the expected service life of the long term project. The idea, as I understand it, is that current spending should be reduced to the required minimum ~ a highly political number, to be sure ~ and taxes, including corporate taxes, should be reduced accordingly to stimulate both consumer spending and business expansion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Sounds like a division into what one might call "on-budget" and "off-budget".  But then eventually someone decides to roll a large chunk of "off-budget" into "on-budget" shortly before the reason for the chunk is slated to go away so that the chunk increases the "baseline".

 

[ModlrMike]

I have to agree with Edward here. I think raising money from bonds is a good idea with lots of precedent. That being said, if they're floated on the bond market we run the risk of devaluation when rates fall. On the other hand, the government can declare a substantive interest rate and issue the bonds as a package deal. I think that either way, one borrows from Canadians, and not from banks or the IMF. While the bond liabilities will show up as a form of debt, they'll be sovereign debt and not subject to the whims of the international banking community or foreign governments.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have to agree with Edward here. I think raising money from bonds is a good idea with lots of precedent. That being said, if they're floated on the bond market we run the risk of devaluation when rates fall. On the other hand, the government can declare a substantive interest rate and issue the bonds as a package deal. I think that either way, one borrows from Canadians, and not from banks or the IMF. While the bond liabilities will show up as a form of debt, they'll be sovereign debt and not subject to the whims of the international banking community or foreign governments.

Wait! Wait! Don't push me where I don't want to go ... I keep saying two things:

    1. This notion ~ using long term bonds (debt) to fund long term infrastructure projects ~ makes some, good economic sense; and

    2. It is an notion proposed by some pretty smart people.

I'm of two minds ... as is so often the case.

I see the economic attraction if, Big IF, it is done by a very, very fiscally prudent government which has, already slashed programme spending, especially social transfers, and has cut corporate and personal taxes and maintained balanced budgets for a sustained period ... i.e. it cannot happen in nCanada as long as 99% of Canadians are allowed to vote.

 

[ModlrMike]

Wait! Wait! Don't push me where I don't want to go ... I keep saying two things:

    1. This notion ~ using long term bonds (debt) to fund long term infrastructure projects ~ makes some, good economic sense; and

    2. It is an notion proposed by some pretty smart people.

I'm of two minds ... as is so often the case.

I see the economic attraction if, Big IF, it is done by a very, very fiscally prudent government which has, already slashed programme spending, especially social transfers, and has cut corporate and personal taxes and maintained balanced budgets for a sustained period ... i.e. it cannot happen in nCanada as long as 99% of Canadians are allowed to vote.

Perhaps I overstated your enthusiasm, apologies.

Maybe we should try this at the municipal level first and see how it goes? I should drop a bug in the ear of Wpg's new mayor.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Actually, while I see the logic in financing infrastructure by bonds, even when one has a budget surplus, I also think we should learn more about PPP: Public Private Partnerships. These are, actually, nearly as old a public works, themselves. Toll roads and canals, for example, were the norm in ancient, medieval and early moderns eras. The 'state' cleared the land or river and an entrepreneur built, operated and maintained the canal or road ... and collected fees for it.

(Caveat lector: my younger son, a vice president at Price Waterhouse Coopers does this stuff for a living and he has suggested to me that business, in general, is poor at evaluating PPPs and government is far, far worse.)

There are an awful lot of things that governments build, operate or do (in the sense of providing services) that might be useful public goods but which need not be built, operated or done by the government, itself. (It may have changed by now, but when I was last in japan for any length of time I noticed that the subways in major cities are privately owned and operated; the government regulates them ~ routes, fares, connections, etc ~ but each is, essentially, a private, albeit regulated, monopoly ... rather like out telcomm system was when I was young.)

 

[CougarKing]

Justin Trudeau...PM Trudeau Sr.'s gift to the Liberals who keeps on giving. :

Yahoo News-Canada Politics column

Trudeau's Toronto speech 'obscene,' says multiculturalism minister Kenney

Defence and multiculturalism minister Jason Kenney is hitting back at Justin Trudeau after the Liberal party leader accused the Conservative government of stoking fear and prejudice against Muslim Canadians.

On Monday night, Trudeau delivered a speech at the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada in Toronto and said the government is using the same kind of rhetoric against Muslims as the country has in other past, shameful, periods.

He likened the government’s policies to other “dark” episodes in Canadian history, including the internment of Ukrainian, Japanese and Italians during the world wars, as well as turning away boats of Jewish refugees.

Kenney retaliated and took to Twitter Tuesday morning to call out the Liberal leader.

"Justin: Liberal govt admitted 5000 Jews fleeing the Shoah 1939-45. Conservative govt has admitted over 300,000 Muslim immigrants since 2006
6:08 AM - 10 Mar 2015" (Justin Kenny Tweet)"

(...SNIPPED)

 

[cryco]

It was a good speech, however much I dislike him, that was unfortunately marred by some rather poor comparisons.
Too bad.
ps I still don't like his dramatic talk. Almost like a much smoother William Shatner.

 

[CougarKing]

Better than decent odds at becoming PM? Seriously?  :

Maclean's

Justin Trudeau quietly suggests we change everything
Justin Trudeau invites questions, but finds only Liberals willing to quiz him
Maclean's

By Aaron Wherry | Maclean's – 11 hours ago

Tuesday night might’ve been a remarkable night in the story of Justin Trudeau. Perhaps it even was.

It might’ve been the night he was publicly thrashed by one of his eager opponents. It might’ve been the night he proved capable of handling himself when there is nowhere to hide. It could have been something like the test of him that we might all imagine the leaders debates at the next election will be. But no one showed up to have a go.

Even still, maybe he made something of it. Or maybe there was something here.

On Monday afternoon, Trudeau’s office had emailed MPs with an invitation to a “question-and-answer session” about his private member’s bill, which would have made changes to the board of internal economy (the committee of MPs that governs internal House matters) and the access to information system.

Some, he said, had RSVP’d and Elizabeth May says she would’ve attended if she hadn’t been busy making a doomed effort at amending Bill C-51. But when 6:30pm on Tuesday evening arrived, it was just Justin Trudeau and 11 Liberal MPs sitting around a rectangular arrangement of tables in a committee room in an obscure corner of Parliament’s East Block. At one end of the room sat Trudeau, flanked by five placards set up to highlight elements of his bill. Directly opposite him were two empty chairs.

Otherwise, the assembled included: four aides to Mr. Trudeau, one individual employed by the NDP, one cameraman, one photographer and three translators, and a grand total of two reporters who had turned out to see a man who has better than decent odds of being the next prime minister.

 

[Good2Golf]

So he threw a party and no one really showed up?  While he and his handlers may have seen this as something they could trumpet about evil Mr. Harper and 'should-have-been-me-not-him' Mr. Mulcair not giving a fig about Canadians, he and his team may have overlooked the fact that this could also demonstrate that he has not even enough gravitas to bring any of his opponents out for even a half-made effort to debate/discuss his issue.  Sounds like a crappy convention salesman who can't even get anyone to stop at his booth.  The only way he could have made it any worse was to schedule his meeting two days later, on Thursday, just before the Easter weekend.  :

:2c:
G2G

 

[ballz]

I think the opposition parties just played good politics on this. Your average sucker (and I'm in this category) would have went and made a spectacle of this, and allowed Mr. Trudeau more limelight than he deserves. Even showing up and schooling Mr. Trudeau would still have worked out more to Mr. Trudeau's benefit than anyone else's.

The Tories, full of saavy, veteran politicians, and led by the best player in Ottawa, and the NDP, led by probably the strongest politician in Ottawa (second to PM Harper in gamesmanship, but not much else), simply ignored him. :ignore: Nothing else could be so devastating...

 

[Good2Golf]

:nod: Exactly what I was thinking. Well played by the veterans. Another example of junior' slack of experience as well as what is appearing to be less and less experience from the back room string pullers.

 

[vonGarvin]

Mister Trudeau, being a Roman Catholic in name only (CINO), probably was unaware that Thursday was Maundy Thursday.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Roman Catholic in name only (CINO)

A.k.a. NARC (non-active Roman Catholic)

 

[vonGarvin]

A.k.a. NARC (non-active Roman Catholic)

Oh, he's active,but it's only for appearances. 

But love that term.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Mister Trudeau, being a Roman Catholic in name only (CINO), probably was unaware that Thursday was Maundy Thursday.

Although, for some reason, I doubt many of the missing liberals were in church for the event, or even celebrating it.

I think most of the MPs, from all sides, just shrugged and said to themselves "I'm not blowing off my holiday for this useless shit" or perhaps words to that effect. :bunny:

 

[vonGarvin]

Although, for some reason, I doubt many of the missing liberals were in church for the event, or even celebrating it.

I think most of the MPs, from all sides, just shrugged and said to themselves "I'm not blowing off my holiday for this useless shit" or perhaps words to that effect. :bunny:

You're quite right about all that.  Especially the bunny ears

 

[a_majoor]

Wow, Elizabeth May is too whack to handle:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/thursdays-reasons-to-fear-for-humanity-you-can-love-justin-or-hate-him-or-maybe-both-at-once

Thursday’s reasons to fear for humanity: You can love Justin or hate him, or maybe both at once
Kelly McParland | April 9, 2015 | Last Updated: Apr 9 9:41 AM ET
More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland

1. OK you can debate, but not about women
 
Elizabeth May can’t decide whether Justin Trudeau is just the cutest and bestest thing that ever happened to federal politics, or just another blinkered male bozo who has no time for women. On Wednesday the Green Party leader declared herself extremely pleased that the Liberal leader had thrown his weight behind allowing her to take part in upcoming election debates. One, so they’d talk about the environment. “The other [reason], which I really like, is that his daughter will be watching her dad in the debate, and he doesn’t want her to think it’s a boys-only thing to be in public life,” May said. Aww, isn’t that sweet. But wait, just like that she said she’s shocked and appalled that Trudeau won’t agree to take part in a separate debate on women’s issues. The guy’s a crud! This is why debates are so great, so leaders can take firm stands.

Rest of the articles on the link are pretty funny as well (especially the one about the Racoons)