Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Ignatieff starts filling in the blanks

by Paul Wells on Monday, March 28, 2011 3:09pm - 157 Comments

Perhaps the most interesting news out of Michael Ignatieff’s news conference this morning at Toronto’s Royal York hotel came, not from the candidate, but from his tormentors in the press gallery: of perhaps a dozen questions, only one was about the Liberal leader’s plans, or lack thereof, for an anti-Conservative coalition after the next election. (I didn’t ask any questions at today’s presser. I’ll have some later in the week when he starts rolling out policy.) So it looks like Ignatieff won’t have to spend the next month talking about the coalition and nothing else.

Also interesting were the hints about what the next week holds. Ignatieff is going to roll out a detailed, costed policy proposal every day, starting with something on “learning” tomorrow and ending with the release of a full platform within a week. Few details yet, except this: “Here’s the key thing about it: This electoral program of the Liberal Party of Canada will cost less – it will cost less than the Conservative program. And we will not raise taxes on ordinary Canadian families. And you know why? Because we’ve said no to corporate tax giveaways.”

Of course the Liberals are saying no to corporate tax cuts that were already introduced, in January of this year, from 18% to 16.5%. As former Liberal finance critic John McCallum told reporters while Ignatieff was crowd-surfing in Chinatown, that’s a tax increase. One question facing voters this week is whether the policies Ignatieff will roll out will be worth the tax increase that will help pay for them.

Bookmark and Share
  • madeyoulook

    Was the Royal York the smartest of ordinary-Canadian optics? I'm sure the little pastry thingies were scrumptuous (was Mitchel there with his camera, I wonder), but still…

    Whatever, I too am very much looking forward to some POLICY. "Smart tax measures for single-income families in the far-off future if we all behave" is not filling this voter up with a whole lot of meaningful policy.

    • noob_goldberg

      I fear those of us who gorge on policy are facing a bit of a lean election.

      Instead of policy steak and potatoes we're going to spend the next six weeks filling up on little policy crackers.

    • LdKitchenersOwn

      Was the Royal York the smartest of ordinary-Canadian optics?

      Is there a particular reason they should have been going for "ordinary-Canadian optics" today, or do we just now expect that every announcement from any politician ever is supposed to happen at a Tim Horton's?

      • Jan

        Harper dropped in on a backyard of an 'ordinary hard working Canadian family' today in Saanich. The lghting was bad – he was in the dark but the sun was in his eyes and one of the children babbled while he talked. I think they'll be re-thinking that sort of venue.

        • brooster2

          Curse those unscripted children.

    • briguyhfx

      Meh. I walk through it every time I visit Toronto. It's where the (usually) cheapest airline's free shuttle drops me off, and has an underground link to the subway, which ferries me off to much, much cheaper lodgings.

      Of course, I don't give press conferences while shuffling through there. But I am available if a gaggle of reporters wants to scrum. ;-)

  • Leo

    Well they can start with using the real figures.

    "you save $6-billion, … The Liberals seem determined to repeat this number, so it’s important to remember that it means approximately nothing.

    It is based on a 2007 projection for 2012-13. In 2007, corporate income tax (CIT) revenues per CIT rate percentage point were in the stratosphere and still rising; projections for the future were correspondingly optimistic. Using the same approach using more recent data, the PBO puts the sacrificed revenue on the order of $4.6-billion. "
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…

    • Mike T.

      Well if we're using Flaherty numbers they're all probably wrong anyway.

    • Paul Wells

      What's kind of fun is that the Conservatives are using the same figure. Both parties have decided it's in their interest to ascribe the highest possible value to the CIT cuts. The Conservatives so they can call reversing it an Umpty-Dump Billion Tax Grab, and the Liberals so they can call implementing it an Umpty-Dump Billion Gift To Rich Corporations.

      • Leo

        Sigh…….I keep forgetting the 85% that don't follow politics!!

      • tedbetts

        So, what you are saying is, the Conservatives hiding the actual costing for their corporate tax cuts and not releasing the back-up info to Parliament as required works in favour of both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Genius.

      • TimesArrow

        "What's kind of fun is that the Conservatives are using the same figure. Both parties have decided it's in their interest to ascribe the highest possible value to the CIT cuts. The Conservatives so they can call reversing it an Umpty-Dump Billion Tax Grab, and the Liberals so they can call implementing it an Umpty-Dump Billion Gift To Rich Corporations."

        [Bangs head against the wall]…it hurts, but not half as much as reading your comment. I think i'm going to give up politics…right after this election.It's in the water, it has to be something their putting in the water…i bet you.

    • Dot

      Stephen Gordon cherrypicks his facts and fudges numbers. Oh, did I mention he supports CIT cuts? Need I?

  • madeyoulook

    Uh, are you on the right page for this comment?

    • Paul Wells

      I too admit to some confusion.

      • alfanerd

        Unless your headline suggests that Ignatieff is the savior and/or Harper is the anti-christ… you are part of the right-wing press and you are "dismantleing" our country.

        • tedbetts

          Except I read the headline as neutral to favourable, at the very least kind. So I'll just peg this as a confusing, knee-jerk reaction from someone who feels passionately and strongly about… one of the sides.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            I'd peg it as incoherent nonsense from a drooling partisan who can't read, but that would be mean. I guess I'll stick with your gentle description.

          • FVerhoeven

            It's actually real smart what he is doing.

          • KeithBram

            ??

      • Reverend_Blair

        Me too, and I'm a lefty.

  • madeyoulook

    And you know why? Because we’ve said no to corporate tax giveaways.

    That would be the tax cut the Liberals said YES to when they were enacted, no? And we seem to want to continue the lie that slightly reduced involuntary confiscation is a giveaway. Other than that, sir, you're doing just fine.

    • Passing by

      I presume parties and leaders can change their views when circumstances change?

      Sorry, I forgot, this is Canadian politics.

      Nevermind.

      Anyway, polls being what they are on the matter of corporate tax cuts, I guess every time someone accuses Ignatieff of raising corporate taxes, he gets a few more votes.

      • Mr Irrelevant

        He can change his view and say now is not the time to lower these taxes, but no, you cannot in the space of a year go from deciding corporate tax cuts are a good idea to calling them a "giveaway". That's the sort of Jack Layton logic that suggests it's almost immoral to EVER cut the corporate tax rate.And I assume that Prime Minister Iggy, like all of his predecessors, would be an enthusiastic proponent of actual "corporate tax giveaways" (ie. industrial subsidies), but that's another matter.

        • tedbetts

          Yeah, that would be like promising seniors that you would never ever under any circumstances tax income trusts and then 8 months later suddenly wiping out their savings by taxing income trusts. You just cannot do that. Context, circumstances, the real world don't matter.

          Once you say something, it doesn't matter if the economic world turns upside down, thou shalt not be practical with thy decision making when dealing with Canadian taxpayer dollars.

          • sourstud

            I think the problem is that it's a clear indication that Iggy has no problem raising taxes to fund new and unnecessary spending. This, along with the prospect of a Liberal/NDP coalition forming after the election, is a somewhat scary idea to me.

          • Holly Stick

            You must be the only person besides Harper who quivers at the thought of the coalition bogeyman.

          • TimesArrow

            "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" JMK

          • Mr Irrelevant

            You missed the point, which I may have stated unclearly, so that wouldn't in itself have made you look like an idiot but you decided to miss the point with the standard pompous sarcasm.

            The point is: Mr. Ignatieff supported lowering the corporate tax rate. He has since decided that this worthy goal would be imprudent to pursue at this time, what with budgetary constraints and such. I disagree, but that's fair enough, no hypocrisy there. The hypocrisy shows up when he rhetorically morphs into Jack Layton, going on about "tax giveaways to the wealthiest corporations", which sounds like he thinks it's pretty unacceptable under any circumstances, doesn't it? Would he use those words when supporting corporate tax cuts when he considers the time right for them? So instead of deciding that something he supports just isn't a priority right now, he's changed from a middle of the road Liberal who believes in a robust social safety net and competitive taxes into a raving class warrior, which he has obviously done for no other reason than that's the strategy right now.

            I get it. It's politics, and they just take a position and try to make it as emotional as they can and pretend the gulf between them and their opponents is enormous, regardless of past positions. They're all doing it, always have and always will. But he's not taking his position on this seriously, so I don't see why I should.

          • TimesArrow

            That's a good point. Unfortunately we seem to be stuck with this sort of politics from all comers now. I choose to place the blame in large part [ not all] on Harper as he's the one who has set the tone from day one with his no prisoners style of politics. Looks to me like Ignatieff has decided to swollow his pride and engage in the same kind of shameless distortions, half truths and opportunistic flip floppery that has been the Harper trade mark. Can't say it isn't happening to a nicer guy.

          • Mr Irrelevant

            To use an example on the other side, which may make it easier, there is nothing wrong with the Conservatives carefully deliberating about whether or not to fund the QC arena (other than it being insane to fund pro sports facilities, of course) and ultimately deciding it's not a priority. And if one of their opponents disagrees, it's fair to point out that their priorities differ. But it's not OK to attack their opponent on the grounds that it's insane to fund pro sports facilities (even though it is), because they clearly don't actually see it that way. Under other circumstances they might have done it themselves (have I mentioned it would have been insane?).

        • brooster2

          "you cannot in the space of a year go from deciding corporate tax cuts are a good idea to calling them a "giveaway".

          Why not? Circumstances change more quickly than that. It didn't take much longer than that for the Harper government to p!ss away the surpluses the Liberals had bequeathed them, and the global economy seemed to implode in a matter of months in 2008.

          A party that didn't change its tax policy in such rapidly changing conditions would be accused of fiscal rigor mortis…sort of like the CPC which only knows how to perscribe tax cuts, no matter the economic climate

          • Mr Irrelevant

            "Giveaway" implies it is much worse than simply a non-priority, but a very bad thing in and of itself. When would a (very) hypothetical PM Ignatieff have his finance minister declare "Now is the time for our government to ensure the future competitiveness of Canada in the global marketplace with massive corporate giveaways"? If he's going to crudely morph into a phony class warrior, he can't complain if people have a crude understanding of his position.

          • brooster2

            I agree that "giveaway" is a misleading way to characterize the cuts, but no more so than the Cons identifying corporations as "job creators" as a result of tax cuts. I have seen no credible economic evidence that tax cuts to large corporations translate into more jobs. So, the Cons are equally disingenuous in their manipulation of the Queen's English.

            Which, in any event, is beside my point that changing policy in the light of rapidly changing economic conditions is not necessarily a sign of indecisiveness or "flip-flopping", as someone else on these boards has implied.

        • KeithBram

          No; saying one thing and then doing the opposite is now exclusively a CPC prerogative. They laid claim to it and likely have a team of lawyers standing by to sue anyone who infringes on their trademark.

    • tedbetts

      Well fiscal decisions aren't static. I suspect you’d agree they shouldn’t be. A decision at one point of the economic cycle is not necessarily right at a different point in the economic cycle, especially if intervening decisions have erased the basic underlying assumptions.

      The Libs supported CIT when they were in government, we had a surplus, the economy was booming, we had the highest CIT in the G8. The Libs supported CIT when they were in opposition, we had a surplus, the economy was booming, we had among the highest CIT in the G8. The Liberals supported CIT when they were in opposition, we were in trying to do anything and everything to stimulate the economy, we had among the highest CIT in the G8.

      The Liberals now oppose the CIT when the economy is growing once again and we now have one of the lowest corporate tax rates (actually the second lowest and lower than the US) in the G8 and we have a monumental, record deficit that will take over half a decade at least to get out of.

      Surely you can acknowledge there are differences.

      • http://handsfreecanuck.blogspot.com Tarkwell Robotico

        Yes, fluid fiscal decision making is very helpful. Companies love the sort of environment where a governing party votes for a tax cut, only to rescind it, only to maybe re-instate it the next day, only to then change its mind again. This is the kind of stable atmosphere that makes economies thrive!!

        If we are lucky, Liberals will extend that fluid decision making to all manner of government activity. Promise to fund an arena, then back out. Promise to fund daycares, then back out. Promise to commit to Kyoto and then… oh wait a second, this has been Liberal policy since day one!!!

        • KeithBram

          Ummm… income trusts? 0% down, 35-year mortgages? Making up investment rules as they go (potash)?

      • Crit_Reasoning

        Hey Ted, did you read Stephen Gordon's latest evisceration of Ignatieff's corporate tax hike bafflegab?
        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business…

        • tedbetts

          No I didn't.

          Too busy reading everyone's evisceration of Harper's income splitting someday after a few more elections "promise" bafflegab.

        • tedbetts

          I've read it now.

          Seems to me the whole point of the article is to challenge the $6 billion number – that's what most of the article is about – and thereby minimize the impact of any deficit reduction or program spending that could ensue.

          I think it is probably fine for Ignatieff to use the same number that Harper is using.

          At least Ignatieff is focusing his policy on today and the needs of families today, not making splashy announcements about tax cutting promises that will permit us families to keep our own money only if (1) the deficit is paid down (2) we elect harper to back to back majority governments ("in my second full term") (3) you have kids under 18 at that time (sorry parents with 10-13 year old kids today or parents paying for university education), (4) there is a huge income gap between spouses (sorry equally working parents), (5) countless other attached strings.

          That's my definition of bafflegab.

      • Mike T.

        Hey, harper said he didn't raise income tax when he first came to office….

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      Let's get this straight.

      The Liberals aren't allowed to vote against policies they disagree with and trigger elections that no one wants. They aren't allowed the vote for policies they disagree with because then it means they really support them, despite what they say.

      Do you think anything is wrong with this message?

      • madeyoulook

        The Liberals ARE allowed to flip-flop as often as and over whatever they please. I am allowed to point out their flip-flop.

        The Liberals are even allowed to suggest it was a great idea a year ago but a catastrophic idea now. I am allowed to raise an eyebrow at them over such a confused stance.

        The Liberals are allowed to call a reduction in the involuntary transfer of wealth (as has already planned and passed into law) a "giveaway." I am allowed to call that dishonest characterization a "lie."

    • TimesArrow

      Haven't you heard: " There are no promises to the Belgians in Canadian politics". [ man i love that]

      Besides CIT is already low enough. We could do with a bit of targeted investment in the country. The CPC wont be happy until we're paying people to come do business here[ just kidding...it is the AB model though] I just wish Ignatieff would stress the need to pay down the debt as much as investment – both are important. And it would blunt the tax and spend label the Tories are going to runout once they tire of yelling coalition.

      • Leo

        We will never tire of yelling coalition, lol!!

      • madeyoulook

        kcm, our governments ALREADY pay a fortune for companies to set up, expand, or maintain business here. And it is stupid, damaging, uneconomic, choose your negative superlative.

        If ALL businesses could benefit from even more competitive tax rates, even more businesses will want to set up here without the out-and-out bribes. Maybe at some point the law of diminishing returns will kick in, maybe not. I doubt my idea will ever take off (tax the corporations not a bit, and tax the shareholders fully on their dividends and capital gains instead), but just imagine what kind of a pro-job, pro-business message that would send to the world.

        • TimesArrow

          Sorry MYL, but if you could point me to a successful model of a society or major economy that thrived in a zero tax environment, i'm all ears. No one seems to be touting the Asian tigers anymore. They were the closest functioning model i can think of.[ god how i remember the libertarians bragging them up] How'd that go?…corrupt snake oil salesmen most of them. They collapsed like a pack of cards – same or similar case in Ireland. I know you regard taxes as confiscation, and beyond a certain point i concur. But i tend to look at it as sending out a message there is no free lunch if you want a civillized society.Everyone should pay their dues one way or another – including corps.
          Ayn Rand was as at least as deluded as as Marx or Lenin.

          • madeyoulook

            If you could point me to where I advocate a zero-tax environment…

            I am saying tax the shareholders. That's all a "corp" is: a collection of shareholders. The ones whose dividends and capital gains are currently taxed less because credit is awarded for the tax already paid by the business. Tax the business not at all (well, ok, we'll still get our paws on the GST collected on the dab gubmint's behalf), and ding fully the shareholders already reporting the profits and capital gains they've earned. Look at all the corporate tax lawyers released into the economy to do something productive with their brains and hands, instead.

            It is the HIGH-tax and high-regulated environments that bring on the corruption.

          • TimesArrow

            macleans you really need to lossen the bolts on your ID tyrant. mmm, suppose it's possible i pushed the cancel button by mistake?

          • TimesArrow

            Sorry but he gubbins ate my pulitzer worthy reply.
            You certainly didn't advocate zero tax anything, sorry about that.

            I simply don't have the background to pass judgement on your proposal; so i'll wait for someone else to come along.However,that last sentence will likely get you accused of an excess of naivete', given our recent little downturn around the globe.

          • MedEditor

            You do realize that corporate profit paid out as dividends is taxed in the hands of the corporation as part of their profits, right? (Unlike salaries, which are deductions against income, leaving the profits to which tax is applied?)

            In 2010, on gross income of $48K, my private corporation paid just about $2K in fed+prov income tax at the 18% rate + employee withholding (on its profits), with a substantial ded'n for being under the "small business" cap. That's because it was taxed only on profit after expenses and salaries. The salaries being mostly under the personal ded'n limits resulted in tax credit refunds to the corporation's employees (spouse and me).

            When I was making a gross of $48K as a private taxpayer, I paid about $6.5K in fed+prov income taxes (which would have been more had I not had dedn's for RRSPs and childcare).

            Are you REALLY saying that corporations should be able to deduct dividends from their profits, too, thus even further minimizing how much they pay? I think that 18% (and only on PROFITS, mind you) is pretty darned competitive compared to what private citizens have to shell out.

          • madeyoulook

            Are you REALLY saying that corporations should be able to deduct dividends from their profits, too, thus even further minimizing how much they pay?

            Thank you for your interest. Please read again what I wrote, and then give me another chance to make the same point here, specifically addressing your commentary:

            Companies don't "deduct dividends from their profits." Dividends ARE profits. The company decided the dollar of profit could not provide at least a dollar of increased value to the company, so rather than re-invest it in the business, it released it to the shareholders. Fine.

          • madeyoulook

            I think that 18% (and only on PROFITS, mind you) is pretty darned competitive compared to what private citizens have to shell out.

            Then look what happens when the tax on the corporation's profits goes to ZERO and you the shareholders also lose the dividend tax credit. Don't worry, the tax still gets paid. The corporation stops wasting valuable resources trying to hide from its corporate profit tax obligations and fighting audits, because it has no more corporate profit tax obligations. The even higher profits go to the shareholders who now pay the tax, only now they pay in full because the dividend tax credit is gone (because the dividends are now fully pre-tax, instead of after-tax). Are you following?

    • wellwell

      Here we go, one of the "taxation is theft" brigade. The same guy who claims to be all about meaningful policy, but has a bad case of the vapours when there's a press conference lasting a few minutes inside the Royal York Hotel, one of the most convenient hotels for media to get to in the GTA.

    • Jan

      I believe the tax cut was passed before we got this deficit. Surely changed circumstances should justify changes in fiscal policy.

  • psiclone

    Right wing press here !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha does your mother know you are on her compter?

  • OriginalEmily1

    I'm waiting for the education policy, so I'm hoping tomorrow will be interesting.

    • Mark

      Check with your provincial governments, which I believe are still in charge of education.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

    Still no goodies for me. Why won't anyone pander specifically to me?!?!?!

    This is shaping up to be the worst.election. ever.

    • noob_goldberg

      Don't get too upset, Ottawa_Centrist. If you're really important, your goodies won't come until near the end anyway.

    • TimesArrow

      i'm holding out for the your kid helping dad get his boat ready for the season tax credit…don't see why arts kids and transit riders should have all the fun.

  • Just Joe

    This guy said it better than I could:

    Stop this race to the bottom on corporate tax, by Jeffrey Sachs, Commentary, Financial Times: …With capital globally mobile, moreover, governments are now in a race to the bottom with regard to corporate taxation and loopholes for personal taxation of high incomes. Each government aims to attract mobile capital by cutting taxes relative to others. …

    The end result is that both the US and UK are battling deficits of about 10 per cent of gross domestic product. …We surely need to reduce the deficits but in a fair, efficient, and sustainable manner, by levying higher taxation on the rich, who are enjoying a boom in living standards and a share of the national income unprecedented in modern history.

    Yet to get to the right place, countries cannot act by themselves. … Multinational companies and their disproportionately wealthy owners are successfully playing governments against each other. The game is clear, and it is working fiercely well.

    As a starting point, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries should urgently convene a meeting of finance ministers to enunciate … that tax and regulatory co-ordination across countries are vital to prevent a ruinous fiscal race to the bottom.

    Link: [ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8836f284-592a-11e0-b9f6... ]

    • Leo

      The government giveth and taketh away. Canada is not the US or UK.

      "The Conservatives are pushing to close a popular corporate loophole – which could boost federal revenues by nearly $3-billion in half a decade – and, for the oil sands, slow writeoffs of lease expenses and mine investments. It’s a shift intended to boost the tax load on energy companies that have seen profits surge on triple-digit crude oil prices." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budg…

      • KeithBram

        Uh-oh! Who will the Albertans vote for NOW?

        • D.D.S

          I am in the west and I gotta say…..Albertans would vote for a hockey puck…if it had a Conservative logo on it…..

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      That assumes that corporate taxes are borne by investors. In a world where capital is mobile, corporate taxes are almost exclusively borne by workers and consumers. Now, if we could coordinate all ~220 countries to raise taxes (good luck), then the capital can't flee. But there will still be some cost borne by workers and consumers because with higher rates, some marginal investments will no longer make sense and won't be made.

      • Bill M

        And corporate tax cuts are borne by exclusively by corporations.

        • Thwim

          Who just magically conjure their payments from thin air, right?

          Please.

    • brooster2

      "With capital globally mobile, moreover, governments are now in a race to the bottom with regard to corporate taxation…"

      That pretty much explains why Ireland, the mighty Celtic Tiger, is on life support. It was among the first in the race to the bottom of the tax cutting ladder and it took them to the bottom of a deep fiscal well.

  • OriginalEmily1

    You guys are cute….not very up-to-date…but cute.

  • chet

    Ignatieff gets a modicum of scrutiny (and a tiny morsel compared to what Harper's subjected to day in and day out),

    and now poor Ignatieff' is being "tormented" is he?

    Just days ago he couldn't give a straight answer regarding the basic composition of the government he would lead, and we are to give him a break or something?

    You do know he wants to be Prime Minister?

    He's not applying to be a volunteer board member for a local charity.

    Wow.

    Just wow.

    • MostlyCivil

      Indeed. If only we went through the criminal record check the staff at the PMO go throug..er, never mind.

    • sammy

      Its pretty typicla, cast your mind back to Dion, and how well he was going to do. zzzzzzzz

  • shouldIsellyourwheat

    Twenty years ago when Reformers were saying the equality meant equal treatment, and a Canadian was a Canadian, they were called racially and ethnically insensitive at best (and usually much worse) by the central Canadian mainstream elitist media and the Liberals.

    Now, that Harper, Kenney, and the Conservative Party have taking a more substantive equality tone where equality sometimes means disparate treatment, the Liberals and the central Canadian mainstream elitist media begin sounding like old-time Reformers and a Canadian is a Canadian again. Of course, Ignatieff wasn't saying a Canadian is a Canadian when he first came back to Canada and pushed the "Quebec is a nation" meme in the Liberal leadership race.

    • Atchison

      "Of course, Ignatieff wasn't saying a Canadian is a Canadian when he first came back"

      He would never have said it like that. What he would have said is a "Canadian is a Canadian, is a Canadian". In the last few weeks he's said "a killing is a killing, is a killing," "a crime is a crime, is a crime", to name a couple that come to mind.

      You'd think all those years he spent in the comfortable womb of academia would have imbibed his lexicon with more than a single idiom.

  • chet

    And while we await the specifics the "I can give you everything you want, and it won't cost you anything" approach will surely resonate with Canadians….

    at least those who spend time perusing late night shopping gimick shows, for those "can't lose" deals.

    That ought to do wonders for Iggy's trust numbers which are rock bottom right now.

    • Dot

      kody, what have you been up to since '08?

      • Thwim

        I expect he's been thinking up a new alias to use after this election.

  • westmalle

    Looking forward to Red Book 2011. Will this one be any more believable than the previous ones? We'll know for sure if it contains a Universal Daycare Program. If it does, it goes right into the re-cycle bin.

    Spending while relying on future revenues from rescinded corporate tax cuts (the ones the Liberals were FOR before they were AGAINST) is very risky. One speech from John Manley and the whole fake premise will crash. If businesses don't grow and invest, they don't create jobs and unemployed people stop paying income tax and start collecting EI and Government revenues go down, not up.

    It's about credibility:

    1993 Jean Chretien" "I will kill the GST"
    2011 Michael Ignatieff: "I will not raise taxes on Canadian families"

    Mr Ignatieff may have just committed a McGuinty

    • madeyoulook

      If it does, it goes right into the re-cycle bin.

      WM, why don't you just download the Red Book '11 PDF, that way a tree will not have died in vain.

      • Atchison

        I'm sure regardless of where westmalle gets his Red Book Iggy will have a warehouse packed to the ceilings with leftovers at the end of the campaign. Iggys newest policy: free insulation for all Canadian familes.

  • madeyoulook

    Well, with thinking like that, I guess you'll be advising the Liberals that they should be hoping for a CPC majority. That way they can oppose stuff without triggering elections we don't want. Or something.

  • Jenn_

    And the circumstances hadn't even changed between the time he announced he wouldn't tax them, and he taxed them. Well, the circumstances affecting income trusts hadn't changed. Harper had won an election by then, though, so I guess that was the circumstance he referred to.

    • tedbetts

      Actually they had changed.

      And of course they had changed. The use of income trusts was on an ever escalating climb, costing billions in tax revenue losses or "leakage" as Harper/Flaherty later called them. The Liberals tried to implement some gradual changes and grandfathering to soften the transition. The Conservatives pounced and promised never ever under any circumstance to do so.

      Inevitably, and predictably, this just added wood to the fire of income trusts. So it was a bad problem made worse by Harper. I don't have a big issue with his decision in the fall (other than on grandfathering) but I do on his decision to make the promise in the first place. And on giving him credit for fixing a problem that he created.

      • Jenn_

        Oh, no, tedbetts. I very distinctly remember a devout Conservative here in the office coming in the day Harper promised not to tax income trusts and giving his (pretend) party card to a devout Liberal here in the office. We all certainly knew the leakage was about to sink the boat.

        I agree, it wasn't the taxing of income trusts, it was the promise not to.

        EDIT: Sorry, I'm not considering "getting worse" as actually changing, since anything left needing repairs inevitably gets worse.

  • FVerhoeven

    He's trying reverse phychology. It works well with the unaware.

  • Trudeau lover

    The media compliance in letting American Igg off the hook with regards to the Liberal/Separatist coalition is not something to be proud of. The compliant Liberal party media should be ashamed of their behaviour running cover for the Liberal/Separatist/NDP coalition while they twist the facts and distort history to suit their nefarious agenda of inserting the Liberal/Separatists into the PMO and the halls of power. The compliant Liberal party media are now enabling Iggomaniac and his Separatist comrades to move on to implementing their campaign strategy of divide and conquer, "culture wars". The Liberal/Separatist activists within the media are an ugly pack of jackals, dragging around the rotting carcass of the once powerful Liberal party, trying to manipulate the electorate with co-ordinated and deliberate lies and misinformation. The media championing Separatist Duceppe as a bastion of truth and honesty is a truly disgusting stench ridden spectacle of taxpayer subsidized self interest.

    • catherine

      did you get hired through the craiglist ad?

    • brooster2

      Well, now, I don't particularly like the term ConBot but I imagine if there were such a cyber-contraption, it would sound pretty much like one of your canned spiels.

      I doubt you're helping your team much with these inane rants, but if they make you feel better, carry on.

      • Trudeau lover

        …and you believe you're sniveling sanctimonious, self righteous, self diagnosed superiority matters how? Although, I guess I should thank you for allowing me to, "carry on". How very "Liberal" of you.

  • Proud canadian

    Folks, read the headline then read the article. It is NOT pro Liberal at all. It is a typical right wing article. "The best thing didn't come from Ignatieff"? "OF COURSE the Liberals are saying no to corporate tax cuts"? "Thats a tax increase"?Come on, even when the right wing press, of which this magazine is, tries to report something good about any party but the tory party, they simply cannot bring themselves to do it.

    • brooster2

      You're Dennis_F's alter-ego, right?

  • filturk

    Not bad as an instigator, I must say, as the Proud Canadian has gotten 10 replies so far.

  • CANADA-FIRST

    This is well worth reading.
    PROOF THAT LIBERAL IGGY LIES & CANADIANS SHOULD BEWARE OF IGGY & WHAT HE SAYS!!!
    GO TO THE WEBSITE BELOW & READ ABOUT IT.
    Why is Iggy trying to revise history?
    By EZRA LEVANT,
    QMI Agency
    Last Updated: March 22, 2011 10:26pm http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/ezra…

    • Proud canadian

      Do you realize that on Feb 9 of this year 2011, the right wing CRTC made it OK for our news to deliberately misinform the Canadian public? Just so the right wing can win an election? That's power hungry! On that day, Feb. 9, 2011 our Canadian culture died. Our news channels are now going to report like FOX News but it will be a gradual change and it is starting with this election campaign. I am scared for Canada's future. My Dad fought on D-Day for our freedom and I don't want to lose that.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        After reading this, I'm convinced that this troll is an American, channeling Robert F. Kennedy Jr..
        http://mwcnews.net/focus/politics/9037-fox-news-l…

        • brooster2

          That's a mighty unkind aspersion to cast on the memory of the late Robt. F., who was an indisputably compelling writer and speaker. "Proud canadian" sounds more like an unrepentant, superannuated member of the Company of Young Canadians or Students for a Democratic Society.

    • madeyoulook

      Focus, please! Your screed has zip to do with promises of Liberal policy statements that are meant to provide an alternative to the pre-programmed CPC incentives for businesses to succeed in Canada. Which is what was posted above by Paul Wells.

      There will be lots of posts over the campaign. Please try to stay somewhere around the particular topic under discussion. Thanks.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        I'm afraid we'll have to put up with a lot of this garbage for the next five weeks. Kudos for trying to politely persuade them to stick to the topic.

    • Reverend_Blair

      Wow…I think Ezra should get his well water checked. It seems to be contaminated.

  • Colin

    Seriously people! Don't feed the troll…

    • Proud canadian

      we wouldn't want people to catch on now would we? that would be aweful if canadians really knew what was going on.

  • taxslave

    I seem to recall numerous previous Liberal governments that gave away billions of dollars to large companies. Mind you most of these were in Ontario and Quebec so it is allright.

  • Mark in Ontario

    Can anyone see a Liberal strategy here? I mean this, I can't see what their plan for the election was before the decision to bring the Government down. The Conservatives dominate the West – no Liberal breakthrough there, in fact, they'll probably lose many of the few seats they have, as well as some NDP (gun registry vote attack not yet unleashed by Conservatives). Liberals are flat-lining in Quebec, 7% among francophones, and the Bloc is invincible. Conservatives dominate in rural and suburban Ontario, and are competitive in big cities. No change happening there. With Danny gone, Conservatives will recover a couple of NL seats, and traditional Tory seats in Maritimes will stay Tory.

    So how do the Liberals plan to win? Is this just a Ignatieff vs Layton struggle for Ontario leftists? If Ignatieff prevails over Layton, what does he win? Where are the 5 dozen seats he needs to flip Liberal, as well as hold everything he has now, to come from? I admit I am baffled by the Liberals.

    The only theory that makes sense is the Liberals expected the NDP to support the Budget last week and were surprised when they didn't and were trapped by their bellicose rhetoric.

    • Thwim

      The theory was outlined a couple weeks ago right here in Maclean's. Basically, Ignatieff's numbers are down so far, pushed via CPC adverts and 10%ers, he's really got nowhere to go but up.

      • madeyoulook

        And so continues the Let's Get This Over With Tour.

  • West Newf

    More lies from the loony left exposed. SHOCKING VIDEO PUTS LIE TO DUCEPTION
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkdXycwDUxA&fe…

  • West Newf

    Mr. Wells, can you please comment on the following video that puts the lie to Duception's accusations against the PM Vis coalition.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkdXycwDUxA&fe…

    • Thwim

      Have to admit, I was a bit worried that you were going to start posting that hourly.
      Looks like your programmers caught the error early. Nice work, guys.

From Macleans