[Wally_Sconce]

Canadian coal is sold on the world market in US dollars. Yet, most of their expenses are paid out in Canadian dollars.

The coal companies are accustomed to picking up another 20% on the exchange rate when the USD gets converted to Cdn dollars. A sudden change in exchange rate screws the coal industry.

I reckon many exporting industries are the same as the coal industry.

[Scape]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

No party is advocating spending less though scape. Any ideas?

It is a good thing to follow the first law of holes; if you are in one, stop digging. You can not cut taxes while increasing spending which is what got us here and now we have an economy in decline to compound it.

What's done is done. We must raise taxes and cut spending. A $50 billion dollar shortfall is no small mistake. Harper must step down. Manning would be a good replacement.

[EyeBrock]

I agree that Harper is not doing well but I don't see a better alternative with the Libs and Manning is yesterdays guy.

[Lemmy]

Scape Scape:

It is a good thing to follow the first law of holes; if you are in one, stop digging. You can not cut taxes while increasing spending which is what got us here and now we have an economy in decline to compound it.

What's done is done. We must raise taxes and cut spending. A $50 billion dollar shortfall is no small mistake. Harper must step down. Manning would be a good replacement.

That ultra-right wing, Reform-element of the party is what destroyed the Conservative party 10 years ago. It would be in the Conservatives' best interest to remain distanced from that Randian-idealogue element that's always self-destructive. Harper, depsite BEING part of that group, has done a pretty masterful job of silencing the extreme-right element of conservativism in Canada; the last thing the party wants to do is marginalize itself again.

[Proculation]

An anti-deficit law won't do anything. In fact it could be worse. We have one here in Quebec since maybe 10 years. The debt has passed from 80 to 135 billions even if we "had" no deficit in the budget. They are just hiding the red lines. Still, we have a 5 billions deficit this year. A better law would be to stop the government from screwing the economy for political reasons.

But anyway it won't happen. They tried to cut a few millions to the artists and they are still whining about this every day.

[Scape]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I agree that Harper is not doing well but I don't see a better alternative with the Libs and Manning is yesterdays guy.

How Harper lost Quebec

$1:

Whether his popularity in Quebec stands at 13% or 15%, Harper is a long way from the 34% he had in late-September, 2008, when he was standing on the doorstep of a majority in what should have been a realignment election.

The people who were advising Harper on Quebec then are the same ones advising him now.

And he's old hat at that! Manning would be an improvement.

$1:

That ultra-right wing, Reform-element of the party is what destroyed the Conservative party 10 years ago. It would be in the Conservatives' best interest to remain distanced from that Randian-idealogue element that's always self-destructive. Harper, depsite BEING part of that group, has done a pretty masterful job of silencing the extreme-right element of conservativism in Canada; the last thing the party wants to do is marginalize itself again.

It wasn't REFORM that brought the Cons down it was Brian and his wall st arrogance that had a tin ear to the needs of main street. That's why Kim was given the job and the cons were reduced to two seats. Reform was a return to the basics. True, some of the grass roots were radicals but they were an honest rep of the party whereas the Con party still had the backing of Big B. Reform was the rank and file and it was that disconnect that created the current party Harper leads.

$1:

An anti-deficit law won't do anything. In fact it could be worse. We have one here in Quebec since maybe 10 years. The debt has passed from 80 to 135 billions even if we "had" no deficit in the budget. They are just hiding the red lines. Still, we have a 5 billions deficit this year. A better law would be to stop the government from screwing the economy for political reasons.

Won't work, here is why:

$1:

To be truly effective, tax and expenditure limitation laws must be constitutional in status. Statutory laws, such as Ontario's Taxpayer Protection Act, can simply be changed or eliminated at the whim of a subsequent government. In fact, this is precisely what the McGuinty government did back in 2003. More recently, the B. C. Liberals amended B.C.'s balanced budget law in order to run budget deficits. Constitutionally entrenched tax and expenditure limitation laws are more difficult to change than statutory laws and do not afford governments the chance to opportunistically alter laws when circumstances change.

[Lemmy]

Scape Scape:

It wasn't REFORM that brought the Cons down it was Brian and his wall st arrogance that had a tin ear to the needs of main street. That's why Kim was given the job and the cons were reduced to two seats. Reform was a return to the basics. True, some of the grass roots were radicals but they were an honest rep of the party whereas the Con party still had the backing of Big B. Reform was the rank and file and it was that disconnect that created the current party Harper leads.

I don't disagree with most of what you've said. I think REFORM started out as you described. But the movement became quickly dominated (and represented) by ultra-right knuckle-scrapers instead of a balanced, grass-roots alternative. And, as I suggested, it's only a matter of time before those idealogues show their true redneck colours. It ended up splintering the right in two (three, if you count the emergence of the Bloc in Quebec).

If a TRUE grassroots reform movement were to spring up again, backed by fair-minded reformists from all sectors of the political spectrum, I suspect it would garner a fair amount of support, including my own.

[sandorski]

Scape Scape:

Outlaw out-of-control government spending

$1:

The growth in federal and provincial government spending has been startling. Over the past five years (2003-2008), average annual increases in government program spending ranged from a low of 3.6% in Prince Edward Island to an astounding 11.4% in Alberta (the federal government averaged 6.2%).

Over this period, every Canadian government -- federal and all 10 provincial governments -- increased spending at substantially higher rates than what was needed to compensate for inflation and population growth. Put differently, every government significantly increased per-person program spending after adjusting for inflation over the past five years.

Even more worrying, most governments increased program spending faster than the rate of economic growth (GDP). In fact, only four Canadian provinces -- British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador -- have managed to limit program spending to less than the rate of growth in the economy.

All of the above examples make it abundantly clear that Canadians need constitutional protection from profligate governments. That protection is best provided by tax and expenditure limitation laws.

Next year the Fed is expected to top 10.2%

No. That would be way more restrictive than necessary.

[uwish]

Wally_Sconce Wally_Sconce:

Canadian coal is sold on the world market in US dollars. Yet, most of their expenses are paid out in Canadian dollars.

The coal companies are accustomed to picking up another 20% on the exchange rate when the USD gets converted to Cdn dollars. A sudden change in exchange rate screws the coal industry.

I reckon many exporting industries are the same as the coal industry.

yup a very good point. And yes we also see this in the Oil and Gas industry. Three years ago when oil was $65 bbl we were not paying 95 cents a liter for oil, but we are now.

Why? Canadian dollar is worth 20% more now than it was before, hence the large multi nationals are only making 10% net instead of the 30% there were 'used' too in the boom.

We have to get companies to understand that 30% YOY growth is NOT the baseline, nor the standard.

[Scape]

To elaborate on EB question:

Let's be fair. The Libs were promising universal health care, day care, the Kelowna accord, a carbon tax with a balanced budget with no deficits. Both sides have spending hard and fast as a part of their platform. We would be $50B in the red no matter who was at the helm. There needs to be spending but in needs to be managed by a credible government. I do not see who could do that when we have a PM making threats of 'hidden tapes' to Iggy at a time when the economy, not stupid attacks should be EVERYONES concern at this point. It's a choice between bad and worse and perhaps we need to flush the toilet a few more times.

[EyeBrock]

Scape, I was hoping for more from Iggy but both him and Harper seem to be as petty as each other and there are many more petty people within the ranks of each side of the house.

I used to be really into politics but now it's all very tiresome and I think they are all a total shower of shite not fit to run a lemonade stand never mind our country.

Leadership seems to be lacking in everything these days. How did the wankers get to be in charge?

[Scape]

I have not been impressed at the ego of Ig and that ego overshadows his leadership by far. That ego was the reason why Dion won the last leadership convention as he could not broker a truce between him and Ray and this leadership was not an endorsement in democracy but rather a coronation. Considering the leadership alternatives (there were none) speaks to how shallow a pool of talent the liberals have and that is a problem for all federal level parties.

Seriously, who wants the job anymore? Before it was seen as a duty to serve now if someone was to be offered Flaherty's job they will be thought they somehow wronged Harper and he wants to taint their future leadership chances. Who could possibly lead this country that has become so unmanageable? In order for Harper to get his majority he has to win Quebec and to do that means he loses his base so he can't. The liberals are the only federal party that has a chance at cracking Quebec but that means that their platform outside of Quebec is basically lip service especially if they talk tough on cutting spending. So if the job of PM is going to be neutered before you even sit down why would you want the job? This deadlock is heading to a constitutional crisis in a real hurry. Before we had leadership who knew how to hold that bull by the horns without causing the country to melt down. That is not true today. Something has got to give we can't end up in a constant election cycle of minority governments. If a government is under constant threat of falling they are forced to campaign their platform rather than govern the country and that is unsustainable and harmful to the country.

[EyeBrock]

The problem is Quebec really.

It's a province where a large portion of the population are isolationist at best and have little interest in what is good for Canada but all for what is good for Quebec.
Pandering to them all these years has gained us nothing. It's time they were given seats in the House that are in proportion with their population and it's time the ROC got on with the business of doing what is best for our country, not just what is best for Quebec.

Until this is sorted we will have weak minority governments for sometime. I also agree with your views on Iggy but Harper has proven to be out of step on so many issues too.

Shite choices.