[UrbanRED]

Looking like Trudeau keeps going down in the polls. Really wouldn't be surprised if we have PM O'Toole in a couple weeks

 

[darwink]

Still a lot of time. People are getting their anger out, and there is a lot of weird sentiment about the western pullout of Afghanistan (somehow Canada should have been the only western country to predict the fall of Kabul).

Foreign policy does not drive elections. They will get back on track, pay attention and decide post labour day. Whether the Tories have out enough baubles in the window? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

whether even with surging poll numbers they are in the right place? Likely not (part of the Tory weakness was weakness on the prairies, so part of the strength is recovery in ridings they were always going to win) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[gsunnyg]

One thing is for certain almost, there won't be a Liberal majority unless there's a massive slip-up from the Conservatives or NDP. Which reinforces the fact the Liberals look like big idiots for calling this election in the middle of a 4th wave. Liberals really banked on the hope that people would be high off the pandemic aid and they'd just happily give them a majority. The more they talk about their platform the more it looks like their platform was slapped together 2 weeks ago in response to the crashing polling numbers. Almost every single one of their promises in their platform could have been passed through the House with the help of the NDP. Singh had reiterated multiple times, earlier on, that whatever the Liberals have been proposing in their campaign so far, they would have got behind it for the sake of avoiding an election.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

According to IPSOS' Darrell Bricker, Canadians are mostly upset with the Liberals for calling the election in the first place. Secondly, in terms of trustworthiness of the leaders, Trudeau rates the lowest. More people think he has a hidden agenda and will say anything to get elected again. Less so with O'Toole and Singh.
So yes, the outcome is looking like either another Liberal minority or a Conservative minority.

 

[Silence&Motion]

One thing about Canadian elections, they are damned unpredictable.

Federal election in the US: The Dems are at 50% and the GOP is at 48%, as it has been for the last 20 years. The outcome all depends on turnout in Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.

2021 Federal election in Canada: The Liberals were poised to win a majority until they called the election, and then they lost 10 points in under a week.
2015 Federal election in Canada: Justin Trudeau leapfrogs from third place over Harper and Mulcair to win a majority.
2011 Federal election in Canada: The Bloc loses 90% of their seats as Quebec votes en masse for the NDP, but only for that one single election.
1984 Federal election in Canada: Brian Mulroney says "you had an option, sir" in a debate and wins one of the biggest majorities in Canadian history, ending 20 years of Liberal dominance.

 

[Mountain Man]

Voted yesterday, super quick and easy!

 

[Habanero]

Really don't want to vote for Justin again, he needs to go. Don't want to vote for anyone else either, so I'm torn...

I'm not big on Trudeau either, but I don't want the federal NDP or the conservatives in, so Justin it is.

 

[Mountain Man]

Trudeau is going to get us so far in debt I had to vote against him. Hope he loses and the Cons get in with a minority, that will keep the Social Cons from having a chance to go full Trump here I hope.

 

[JonnyCanuck]

Trudeau is going to get us so far in debt I had to vote against him. Hope he loses and the Cons get in with a minority, that will keep the Social Cons from having a chance to go full Trump here I hope.

I hear you. He will not only run up the debt, he has no plan or seemingly no interest in getting us out of it.
When he says stupid things like 'the budget will balance itself' and 'you will forgive me if I don't think about monetary policy', you know he does not have a clue what he is talking about. The fact that we are having another election that will cost $500 million at a time when Canadians don't want one, is proof that adding to the debt is of no concern. Look at how much this government has spent on 3rd party consulting because they don't have the depth and experience in cabinet.

Third-party consultancy fees paid by federal government to leap another $1.3 billion

The increase underscores ballooning costs for consultancy services that have occurred under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over the last six years

nationalpost.com

 

[Mountain Man]

I want to like Trudeau, I really do, but the guys is just such a knob sometimes.

 

[darwink]

In an ultra low interest rate environment, when the economy is growing but not at gangbusters rates, withdrawing spending or taxing more is in effect shrinking the money supply, the same as raising interest rates.

I know people are worried about some theoretical debt crisis, but it just isn't in the cards. Yeilds are low. Long term yields are low. The market is telling the government to borrow.

O'Toole is listening to those signals. He isn't about turning down spending in the near term, only in out years, and counting on economic growth to catch up to the point where the budget balances itself.

If you want cuts, vote for the PPC. (Not that anybody should)

 

[Silence&Motion]

Yeah, I don't really understand the knee-jerk opposition to debt. Seems like an odd top priority issue to have in the middle of a global pandemic. Who looks at the COVID performance of the conservative provincial governments over the past year and says "actually, we should do that on a national scale"?

 

[DougB]

Yeah, I don't really understand the knee-jerk opposition to debt. Seems like an odd top priority issue to have in the middle of a global pandemic. Who looks at the COVID performance of the conservative provincial governments over the past year and says "actually, we should do that on a national scale"?

I disagree for 2 reasons:
1) interest rates can only go in one direction and the timing is impossible to predict
2) even with rates close to zero, there are few things that government could fund that would produce positive returns. Lower rates only push up the costs to build infrastructure, so it is a zero sum game
3) borrowing to fund operations (ex. payroll, transfers to individuals) does nothing to promote the ability to eventually pay back the debt through higher GDP growth. "Investing in people" is a false narrative

 

[Silence&Motion]

I disagree for 2 reasons:
1) interest rates can only go in one direction and the timing is impossible to predict
2) even with rates close to zero, there are few things that government could fund that would produce positive returns. Lower rates only push up the costs to build infrastructure, so it is a zero sum game
3) borrowing to fund operations (ex. payroll, transfers to individuals) does nothing to promote the ability to eventually pay back the debt through higher GDP growth. "Investing in people" is a false narrative

1. That's true. Clearly fiscal policy has to be continually adjusted to real world conditions. This doesn't seem to contradict anything I wrote.
2. If there is some need for infrastructure, the longer we go without building it, the more of a cost it imposes on society. Putting off investing in green energy, for example, increases the amount of carbon in the air. Putting off repairs to public housing means that eventually the government will have to pay more to demolish and rebuilt those buildings.
3. Actually, laying off thousands of people and cutting government services every time there is a dip in revenues would be disastrous public policy. The government's ability to take on debt allows it to maintain overall social and economic stability whenever there are ups and downs in the broader economy.

BTW: I'm not saying debt is always good. I'm saying its a useful tool for governments, but some people seem to have a moral objection to taking on debt. One of the worse cliches among politicians is the comparison of the government to a family sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how to pay off the credit card. It makes absolutely no sense in terms of fiscal policy. It's a Protestant morality tale about the importance of working hard, avoiding excessive consumption, and "living within one's means".

 

[JonnyCanuck]

If inflation is sustained and not transitory, then interest rates most certainly will go up. Many of us on this blog are involved in the construction industry. We have already seen price increases on a wide range of materials and finished goods. Rarely are those increases reversed once implemented. For as many economists who are suggesting this period of inflation is transitory, there are now many saying it is likely to be sustained.
As far as paying down debit, it is not a knee jerk reaction. It is a responsibility of every individual, company and government to pay it's bills. There are two ways to do that ... control spending and increase revenues.
It would be nice to hear from one of our political parties a detailed plan to increase exports of our energy, mining and agricultural products. The additional taxes from those revenues is one way to pay down debt. Unfortunately, O'Toole feels the need to navigate around social issues in this campaign, Trudeau can't possibly suggest we export anything that might be perceived as increasing carbon emissions and Singh is in 'lala land' when it comes to any serious economic policy. We can debate all day long that the world does not want fossil fuels but it is just not true.