Thanks for some of the insights Winnipegjets. Honestly I am very new to Canadian and Alberta politics. And I am taking an open view on this. However I am certainly leaning to the right. I did the CBC questionnaire thingy and I found myself agreeing with most of Harper's policies. I did not agree with Canada's involvement in Syria though.
I remember my first encounter in a Canadian bank when I came here to study. I was so annoyed that the teller was spending a long time with each customer. Why couldn't they be as efficient as the Sinkapore bank, I asked. Then, I started to appreciate the humanness in a commercial transaction; the teller was be personable to the customer.
I believe in fiscal soundness (not carrying debt) in a home budget but running a country is different. To equate management of country with management of household is ludicrous. The country has resources that households do not. The country has a perpetual lifespan and thus could spread investment over a much longer horizon. So, balanced budget is not necessary all the time and is a bad thing when business are not spending.
Most immigrants tend to be right-wing in their leanings because they come from an environment where self-reliance and self-preservation is the norm. There are little social programmes back in their home countries. Yet, many are attracted to Canada because of the public programmes. There is a disconnect here. They want to pay little tax and yet want the generous public programmes. That is not going to happen, something will have to give.
I suspect at some point, Canadians will have to decide if they want to invest in their social programmes again or let them die a slow death.
My favourite society is the Scandinavian countries; I think they got it right. It is truly middle class society (socialism as the right-wing would term them) as the government using taxes provide for the more expensive items in life - healthcare, education, unemployment insurance, childcare and retirement pension. Those are the things to live decently. Everyone can live a middle class existence with the government playing a role.
The after tax dollars in Scandinavia are truly for one to spend as one wishes. I have no problem paying 50 percent tax to cover all those expenses in my life.
There is no right or wrong in politics. Which is why we have elections. I believe it is good to have change when needed. It brings checks and balances.
That's why a centrist platform seems to be favoured in Canada. After 10 years of Harper, Canadians had enough of extreme right-wing ideology. Harper's brand of Conservatism is very much like that of the PAP. He went after his critics with a vengeance - using the tax department to go after NGOs that were critical of his policies, labelling environmental groups as terrorists, employed wedge politics, refusing to work with the Liberal government of Ontario and then passing electoral changes that would give his party an advantage. Harper even went after the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court had ruled against his laws on a few occasion. And Harper's Government was the most secretive in Canadian history. Guess what, Harper was a huge admirer of sinkapore. So, all these observations reminded me of the PAP government.
What Harper did was a first. No Canadian Prime Minister with a majority had crossed those boundaries that Harper did. The democracy thrive only when leaders did not push the limits. Harper didn't have any limits ...his majority government was a licence for him to rule like a dictator. Five more years of Harper would have killed Canada. The progressive voters were determined to toss Harper out; 30 percent of Canadians are die hard Conservatives and 30 percents are left-wingers, leaving the middle ground to decide the outcome. The middle ground could lean either side. When Harper became more right-wing, he alienated the middle ground that had propelled him to majority government. Aside, even the head of editorial for the right-wing National Post, Andrew Coyne, quit when he was told to write an endorsement of the Harper government during the election. The ethnic voters that supported him went back to support the Liberals after seeing how under Harper, the doors to immigration was closing. Harper was from the Reform Party which was anti-immigration.
Even in right-wing Calgary, the Liberals managed to win two seats. For the longest time, the Liberals have been shut out of Calgary and have only won ONE seat in Edmonton.
You know so much about Canada! How long did you live in Canada, Winnipegjets? Pity you're not here among us. I hope that one day you will change your mind and move back here.
I find Canadian politics fascinating and thus continue to follow it even when I am in distant sinkapore. Someday, I will come back if I don't go to the Scandinavian countries.
Here's a recent article that you may have missed:
Seeking a political scapegoat for plunging oil: Don Pittis
As oil tumbles conservatives in the energy sector have political opponents in their sights to take the blame
By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Jan 13, 2016 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Jan 13, 2016 5:00 AM ET
Do you remember when oil prices were strong? In those days, Conservatives ruled in both Ottawa and Edmonton.
Now that Rachel Notley's NDP has taken power in Alberta, things have gone off the rails. And Trudeau! Surely everyone knows his dad's National Energy Program was the reason for the last oil crash.
Absurd as those statements may appear to those who understand the workings of global markets, there are already signs that right-leaning supporters of the oil and gas industry are busy seeking political scapegoats. It may be in vain, but Canada's current political leaders must tread carefully if they wish to avoid taking the blame.
My erstwhile CBC colleague Kevin O'Leary, who spent many years on the public broadcaster's payroll, fired a shot at the Alberta premier this week, asking Notley to resign before he would put money into the province.
Blame Notley
"I'll invest $1 million in Canadian energy companies if out of grace and for the absolute good of Canada, the premier of Alberta resigns," he said on a radio talk show.
"O'Leary attributed layoffs and the plummeting dollar on the inexperience of Notley's government and poor policy choices, specifically, hikes in corporate tax rate and uncertainty about royalties," said the Toronto Star article that reported the comments.
The idea that the falling loonie has anything to do with Notley and her NDP government is clearly absurd. It is less clear whether planned changes to oil royalties and taxes have any effect at all on Alberta's slumping economy, but if so, it is certainly microscopic compared to the continuing collapse of oil prices from over $100 US a barrel in 2014 to around $30 US today.
O'Leary is not alone of course. Conservatives in the oil industry are watching for any opportunity to point fingers at policy by Notley or Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the reason for the dire troubles the sector is currently suffering. If nothing else, their scrutiny diverts attention from their own failure to foresee the crash in oil prices, now so obvious to everyone.
For anyone who remembers back that far, in some ways it is like a rerun of the 1980s global oil crash. That was the last time the Alberta economy was shattered by a drop in the world price of energy.
Folk wisdom
Even today, in the folk wisdom of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Justin's father, Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau and his National Energy Program are still blamed for the debacle. There is no question that the NEP created a real rift between Alberta and the federal Liberals that has never really healed.
As the CBC host Barbara Frum said at the time, recorded in this archived radio interview: "One of those arguments [Premier Peter Lougheed] makes, of course, is that you're just grabbing at his wealth to make up for your deficit."
Provisions of the NEP did cut into Alberta's share of oil revenue, but it is a stretch to say that it was the main cause of the subsequent crash in oil, jobs and house prices.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley didn't make the policies that led us into the current economic mess, but that doesn't mean they won't take the blame. (Reuters)
The idea, misremembered to this day, is that the NEP killed the Alberta economy. Just like today, the real damage was done by the world price of oil that in 1980 had hit a peak of $35 US a barrel (over $100 in today's money) but then began a long fairly steady decline to about $10 by 1986. That sounds familiar.
Norway's nestegg
In retrospect, some of the provisions of the NEP might have helped us in our current mess. One, to build a national oil company like Norway's Statoil, could have left us with a multibillion-dollar dollar nestegg.
And if Canada had paid slightly lower prices for oil during the boom of the last 10 years, and slightly higher prices now, there is a possibility Canada's non-resource exports would not have been so badly damaged by Dutch disease.
As Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz has warned, even with the low loonie, it could take years for Canada's industrial economy to rebound. Perhaps even Alberta would be better off now if its Conservative government had raised taxes and royalties, sharing the wealth and becoming less of a one-industry province.
Trusting the free market to build a capitalist paradise where Canada is an energy superpower doesn't seem like such a great idea when the world price of oil dips below $30 US.
As is often the case in Canadian politics, governments are pitched out not when things are going great but when something has gone sour. Both in Alberta and in Canada, new governments must deal with a series of economic crises that can quite fairly be attributed to the policy of their Conservative predecessors.
But in the world of politics, not being at fault doesn't mean you won't take the blame.
