Home › Canadian economic mood flat in August (Nanos Ec...
Canadian economic mood flat in August (Nanos Economic Indices - August 2012)
Nanos tracking on the economy
Although confidence in the Canadian economy remained flat over the past month, Canadians were more likely to feel more confident in their job security in August. Positive perceptions continue to be driven by Canadians who live in the energy-driven Prairie provinces.
One thing to watch are perceptions related to real estate. Net positive views on real estate have dropped for the fifth wave of research in succession. Although still positive, it is the lowest score since the second quarter of 2009 in the Nanos tracking. For many Canadians, their largest single investment is their home. If views related to real estate continue to slide, it could result in a dampening effect on future consumer confidence in Canada.
These are the key findings of the consumer confidence tracking study completed by Nanos on August 16 and 17, 2012.
Retrouvez les tableaux détaillés ainsi que les notes méthodologiques sur notre site web en français où vous pouvez également vous inscrire afin de recevoir des mises à jours regulières sur nos sondages.
The current wave is based on a representative random sample of 1,000 Canadians, conducted online by Nanos Research between August 16th and 17th, 2012. The results were weighted using the latest census information and statistical testing suggests that the research is an accurate depiction of the views of Canadians at the time of the research.
Nanos Economic Monitor
The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the Nanos Economic Mood Index, the Nanos Pocketbook and the Nanos Expectations Sub-Indices in July 2012.
2012-08 - Nanos Economic Mood Index: 101.3 (+1.1)
2012-08 - Nanos Pocketbook Sub-Index: 92.0 (+2.2)
2012-08 - Nanos Expectations Sub-Index: 112.5 (-0.3)
2012-08 Strength of the Economy Net Score: -4.0 (+2.9)
2012-08 Real Estate Net Score: +14.9 (-3.4)
2012-08 Personal Finances Net Score: -13.5 (+0.2)
2012-08 Job Security Net Score: +38.3 (+7.5)
What do you think?
Cheers,
Nik
|
RSS feed
Comments
RonaldODowd
What I Learned From Jean Charest Last Night.
More often than not, armchair quarterbacks are able to dissect exactly where and why things went off the rails. That's the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. In the case of the Charest government, you can argue about where the dream started to die.
It's no secret that the Charest Liberals are -- to put it mildly -- widely unpopular in Quebec. There is still a chance that Jean Charest might win re-election but the conventional wisdom suggests that is unlikely.
I think it's fair to say that in politics, it's not really about party loyalty or even standing behind the leader. It's about neutral detachment and measuring the progress, or lack thereof, of a given government. At least, that's the theory.
But when you come right down to it and the fight is joined in the trenches, things take on a different perspective. That's what I learned from Jean Charest last night. It's not necessarily Charest against the Quebec political world but it is about going the distance and doing it honorably.
Observers can rhyme off a litany of reasons why the Charest government deserves to lose power. It's easy to seriously toy with voting for someone else. But when push comes to shove -- when the eleventh hour arrives, you have to at least show pause before throwing in the towel on the best fighter for Canada in the ring.
Voting for another party is perfectly legitimate. That's why it's called democracy. But as far as yours truly is concerned, I may not want to win one for the Gipper this time but guts, determination and a sense of humour proved to me last night why I won't be casting a ballot against Charest's team. For the first time since becoming an adult, the democratic process will have to find its way without me.
[updated Wed Aug 22 15:10:20 -0400 2012]
22 Aug 15:10
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Bernie
I don't see any reason to believe that the economy will improve in the near term. Governments are not prepared to take the actions that would stimulate the economy. While there is at least a weakening of the hard-line stance, there is still a reluctance to take the necessary progressive steps.
My pocketbook is gradually getting thinner and I don't expect improvement.
I don't consider the indiators that they use to measure the economy as being all that valid. The economy is weaker than what those indicators show.
I have no idea what real estate may do. I am surprised it's maintaining its high level.
I, being retired , don't worry about a job, but I see the National job security index weakening in the future.
[updated Thu Aug 23 17:09:15 -0400 2012]
23 Aug 17:09
19 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Lex Llewdor
Governments don't stimulate the economy. The last stimulus package had almost no measurable effect.
What stimulus does, though, is pervert the market. In the US now we're seeing bank stocks go up whenever there's a bad news announcement out of Europe, because it increases expectation of more government money flowing into the system.
This is similar to how increase healthcare spending in Saskatchewan has tended to increase wait times for medical services, as spending hikes tend to induce strike activity by public sector unions.
When the government interferes in the market, the market breaks.
It was even government intervention that brought down the US housing market. Typically, a lender only lends money when he thinks the return (the interest) outweighs the risk (default). With a seccured loan like a mortgage, there's less risk to the lender because the lender gets the asset (the house) if the borrower defaults. But they don't really want the asset - they'd rather just get their money.
So along came Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They bought mortgages from banks. This gave banks their return immediately, and absolved them of any risk. Fannie and Freddie, as government-backed enteprises, effectively socialized the risk. This meant that banks then had an incentive to issue as many loans as possible - to anyone - because they weren't exposed to the risk. Banks got paid for giving out mortgages, full stop. So of course they dropped their standards. The banks' job is to maximise the return on their money, and once Fannie and Freddie socialized mortage risk the way banks could do that was issuing loans recklessly. Because, for the banks, it wasn't reckless. It was guaranteed profit.
If Fannie and Freddie hadn't been socialising risk, then the banks would have had an incentive to behave differently.
[updated Fri Aug 24 21:54:33 -0400 2012]
24 Aug 21:54
Bernie
In my view that is a complete distortion of what really happened.
BTW It's the unregulated private sector that created the recession/depression as they always do and it is governments that get us out of recessions/depressions as they always do.
[updated Sat Aug 25 17:04:52 -0400 2012]
25 Aug 17:04
Lex Llewdor
Recessions like this one (and the depression, and pretty much all of them) are caused by bursting bubbles.
And it's the misallocation of resources that causes bubbles. So why are resources being misallocated? Because government action (including fiat-based monetary policy) distort the market.
Your view is depressingly Keynesian.
[updated Tue Aug 28 02:46:18 -0400 2012]
28 Aug 02:46
Bernie
Yes, I agree, depressions are caused by bursting bubbles these bubbles are caused by unscrupulous people misallocation of resources, by ascribing a false evaluation to a resource. This is done by private operators not by governments.
Governments come in and correct it.
Thanks for the compliment; putting me in the same sentence with Keynes.
[updated Tue Aug 28 16:54:26 -0400 2012]
28 Aug 16:54
Lex Llewdor
Yes, it is done by private operators. They do it because the government has distorted the market, be it with subsidies, tariffs, trade barriers, taxes, inflation, or regulation, the government is always the source of the market distortion.
The one exception to this is the abuse of monopoly power. Monopolies can also distort the market, and often try to do so to their own advantage. This is why monopolies are dangerous.
And yes, I just described inflation as something the government does. Because it is. Inflation is an increase in the money supply - full stop. The government does that. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
How, incidentally, do you think the government fixes things?
And comparing you to Keynes is far from a compliment.
[updated Tue Aug 28 21:56:24 -0400 2012]
28 Aug 21:56
RonaldODowd
Lex,
I know diddly about economics (some might say the same thing about my alleged political knowledge!!!!!!!) but I'm curious. How do you see the work of Friedman. Is it correct -- or only partially so? What about the Austrian School?
Again as a guy who knows NOTHING, my general impression is that every economic theory and its proponents will inevitably either sooner or later be proven wrong. Must be why they call Economics the dismal science. Thanks!
[updated Tue Aug 28 23:07:48 -0400 2012]
28 Aug 23:07
Lex Llewdor
Mainstream economics is defined by its adherence to inflationary monetary policy. That is, that money is created out of nothing by a central authority, and created constantly, inflating the total supply of money.
Friedman is perhaps the best known figure from the Chicago School, which does lie within mainstream economics. Chicago generally holds that government power is dangerous, individual freedom is paramount, and taxes constrain economic growth. Perhaps the purest implementation of Friedman's ideas can be found under the rule of Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Pinochet, after taking control of Chile in a military coup, hired Milton Friedman to fix Chile's economy. Together, Pinochet and Friedman launched a program they called "Shock Therapy", where Chile's third-world socialism was replaced overnight by an extreme free market model.
The transition was difficult, but Chile's economy soon thrived, and Chile is the wealthiest country in South America today.
Within mainstream economics (which, again, relies on inflationary monetary policy), I'd say that Friedman is among my favourites.
But mainstream economics has significant problems. Because it relies so heavily on econometrics (math, basically), it requires very strict assumptions about human behaviour. This is often derisively referred to as Homo economicus - the ideally rational person who always knows his own preferences perfectly. The problem is, this doesn't actually describe people. People are not ideally rational.
Also, as the sovereign debt crises in Europe, and the collapse of the banking sector in the US demonstrate, inflationary monetary policy is dangerous. This is why I don't generally like mainstream economics. I'm an Austrian.
Austrian economics differs from the mainstream in two very important ways. First, it doesn't accept inflationary monetary policy. The Austrians typically want currency either tied to the value of a commodity, or to have the money supply be fixed. You might remember Maxime Bernier calling for a fixed money supply in a speech he gave about 4 years ago. Second, Austrian economics doesn't assume ideal rationality. People try to act in the own best interests, but they can't always succeed. From the point of view of mainstream economists, this creates a significant problem for Austrian economics in that it prevents econometrics from working. Austrian economics basically doesn't contain any math. Instead, the Austrians solve problems using formal logic, which is significantly more flexible a tool (but harder to use, and generally something in which mainstream economists have no training). It's the logic that tells the Austrians not to let the currency inflate, because the mechanism that issues new money (the central bank) can be gamed by people seeking advantage, and if it can be gamed then it will eventually be gamed. We saw this exact thing happen happen in the years leading up to 2008.
Even now, bad news out of Europe now causes American bank stocks to go up, as the interventions by the Federal Reserve have created the expection of future interventions. If Europe falters, American investments now distort the market by speculating on future rounds of Quantitative Easing (which is really just the Fed printing a massive pile of money and giving it to the government).
[updated Wed Aug 29 01:24:50 -0400 2012]
29 Aug 01:24
RonaldODowd
Lex,
It would be nice to see AE implemented by a first-world government. Now, that would be an interesting case study.
As for QE, after two rounds along with that other thing whose name I can't recall, the end result has been less bang for the buck with each successive round. Obviously, it will not do the trick.
Some argue excess corporate cash needs to go to shareholders. Others suggest it belongs in job creation. I'm agnostic on that point (for now) since seemingly most job creation in the U.S. comes not from large or even small business but quite simply from start-ups.
Some economic data seems to be on the upturn. But it risks being too little to boost the Democrats' chances. In spite of themselves, the Democrats may still win thanks to Romney-RYAN...
[updated Wed Aug 29 01:41:25 -0400 2012]
29 Aug 01:41
Lex Llewdor
Mark Carney is right that corporate liquidity sitting around doing nothing doesn't benefit anyone, but the reason that's a problem for Carney is that liquidity problems are the only problems inflationary money is in a position to solve. As long as companies hoard liquidity, Carney's hands are tied.
A fixed money supply would, to some degree, prevent this from happening by making money too valuable not to use.
[updated Wed Aug 29 23:19:02 -0400 2012]
29 Aug 23:19
RonaldODowd
Lex,
Interesting.
[updated Thu Aug 30 01:32:57 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 01:32
Bernie
"the pricate operators" are the government. The US (and increasingly Canada) is run by elite corporations: Elite private operators. That's who have created the mess we are in. Where the people form the government we don't have such problems or at least not to the degree or severity. In countries like Holland, Denmark and Sweden where they have governments more representative of the people there is restriction of the harm done by the private sector. I don't see many people anxious to get out of those countries.
Monopolies, and their cousin, coercion, are what corporation desire and what we have. There is practicly no competition, Every major resource and industry has an agree price tag acceptable to the half dozen or less companies who monopolise them. Inflation arises out of the need to counteract the excesses of the "free" maket
Governments, when and where we have governments, limit the power and excesses and negative actions of the lucky fortunate and ameliorate the harm done to less fortunate.
Keynes was a great economist as was J K Galbraight. Today Stiglitz, Sachs, Krugman and Reich are good ones. Canada has one in Stanford.
[updated Wed Aug 29 16:41:37 -0400 2012]
29 Aug 16:41
Lex Llewdor
And that's a huge problem. The private sector should not be allowed to dictate the rules of society to the government. The government picks winners and losers for political reasons, and this needs to stop.
I suggest the way to do this is to deny the government the power to do such a thing. As long as the government can change to rules to benefit one group over another, that group will work to make that happen.
Corporations lobby the government because lobbying gets results. We can change that by weakening the government.
[updated Wed Aug 29 23:21:16 -0400 2012]
29 Aug 23:21
RonaldODowd
Lex,
I take your point. But history has proven that strong enforcement of sane regulation is a virtual necessity to control self-evident private excess.
[updated Thu Aug 30 01:36:53 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 01:36
Lex Llewdor
Undoubtedly. Any regulation in place needs to be enforced rigidly and without exception, but it also should not be subject to the whims of government seeking advantage.
The best regulation is predictable regulation.
[updated Thu Aug 30 21:22:32 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 21:22
Bernie
100% agreement
[updated Thu Aug 30 18:33:53 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 18:33
RonaldODowd
Bernie,
Interesting counter-view.
[updated Thu Aug 30 01:34:26 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 01:34
Bernie
Ronald
I have no formal education re economics. I accept what seems like common sense to me The well known economists have interesting theories and in some ways what they say is maybe correct. But it's all theoretical verbiage to me. I don't see it transformed into practical usefulness. These are smart people and well schooled in their descipline and like all the rest of us wish to ague. It only natural for them to see someone offer interesting theories so they have to show off their "knowledge" and have their say in the discusssion.
I only relate to an economic system that provides the less fortunate with that which is necessary for their reasonal existance. Private sytems will never do that , so I'm from the school that says governments use expenditures to make sure that happens. I don't care how the private sector operates over abd above that, except with the proviso that they don't do harm to trhe rest of us.
[updated Thu Aug 30 18:55:03 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 18:55
Lex Llewdor
I also have no formal education in economics. But I never accept common sense without investigating it fully. In my experience, appealing to common involves advancing a conclusion without first doing the reasoning necessary to reach that conclusion. That invites error.
[updated Thu Aug 30 21:25:12 -0400 2012]
30 Aug 21:25
Bernie
Again, I agree.
[updated Fri Aug 31 16:02:14 -0400 2012]
31 Aug 16:02
RonaldODowd
Quebec Quiz: What Do Pauline Marois, Flora MacDonald And Brian Topp Have In Common?
Maybe nothing. We're finally heading into the last week of the campaign. Mercifully, thank you.
If you take a good look at Pauline Marois' PQ, you notice in poll after poll that they are basically leading and holding their own -- translation: not so good. It's reasonable to wonder out loud whether this is another instance of The Flora Syndrome -- where a sizable chunk of the electorate is perhaps thinking ABM. Flora learned that lesson the hard way and had to throw her support to Joe Clark.
But that is only one potential flashing red sign. The next comes courtesy of a more recent leadership race. Remember how they all had Brian crowned as leader one week into the race and incapable of growing enough to pull it out by the time the ballots were counted. That's Pauline's second warning.
François Legault and the CAQ are slowly but steadily rising in the polls. It ain't The Big Mo but it isn't chicken feed either. Watch and see whether that continues in this final week. As for Jean Charest and his Liberals, even some of his MNAs and organizers are privately admitting that they are likely toast. With Jean, one can never call it a certainty but francophone support hasn't been this low since the 19th century...
Meanwhile, everyone in Quebec waits to see the CROP numbers. Yours truly included. My prediction will have to wait -- especially when my head is telling me one thing while my guts is screaming the exact opposite. Political junkies, fun times ahead!
[updated Mon Aug 27 06:21:57 -0400 2012]
27 Aug 06:21
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Quebec Election: What A Choice...
I'm actually amazed to see people going out in droves to vote in the Quebec election. One would thing given the political choices, that people would be less than enthused. But so far, the precise opposite seems to be happening as voters mobilize to effect "change" whatever that is.
Pauline Marois has been less than spectacular. Ditto for Jean Charest. But what truly boggles the mind is watching a party that was conjured up straight out of nothing on the virtual cusp of perhaps forming government. Conventional wisdom has already declared that we will be eating minority-flavoured ice cream. Looks that way.
But what troubles me is how François Legault can make some of those promises with a straight face. Frankly, no serious observer in Quebec actually believes that a CAQ government will be able to provide a family physician for every Quebecer within a year. (Reminds me of Supply-Side Economics but I digress.) Couple that with Legault's refusal to release his "studies" related to Hydro-Quebec and you really start to wonder what is happening here.
Will we be electing a government on September 4th -- or rather as we say in French, un château de cartes? If they get in, will the CAQ implode as quickly and spectacularly as the ADQ did? One more thing -- if it's a CAQ minority, which party will sink it and more importantly, which other party, under which leader, will likely still be around to benefit from the CAQ's possible ineptitude. I will leave those answers to your imagination.
[updated Tue Aug 28 23:37:14 -0400 2012]
28 Aug 23:37
7 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Lawson1945
Say NO to the Nexen Deal we do not want the communist owing our resources, send refined product to China also and for BC no raw logs, Liberals (BC) are toast will not form government in May 2013
A message from a Conservative Voter
In (BC) vote BC Conservative, the only party that will not be in your pockets, like elected officials and beauacrats (note ICBC, BC Hydro, BC Ferries the list goes on and on
[updated Tue Sep 04 19:20:05 -0400 2012]
04 Sep 19:20
3 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Quebec Election Prediction: The Juggernaut That Wasn't.
I'll keep it short and sweet -- translation: which party do you hate the least?...it should be the winner tonight.
Observers are saying the PQ has screwed itself with all that talk about sovereignty. Ditto for the CAQ with its proposed draconian measures -- too far right for most voters to stomach it seems.
And what about the Liberals? They were left for politically dead. Will Charest continue the previous Canadian trend of incumbent re-election with most voters focusing on the economy or is his goose really cooked this time? Darned if I know.
In any event, I would be astonished if the CAQ got in. I regard election of the PQ as iffy so I think the best Pauline can do is a minority. Maybe yes, maybe no.
As for Johnny, don't count him out just yet. He may pull another minority rabbit out of his hat.
But when the rubber hits the road, my forced prediction would seem to be a PQ minority.
[updated Wed Sep 05 02:01:05 -0400 2012]
05 Sep 02:01
9 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Positive Proof Why God Loves Canada!
I don't intend to till the soil again but suffice it to say that our Lord is a charitable being -- having annointed Pauline Marois and the PQ with but a minority.
That will allow the ever-sleepwalking Canada to avoid holding her breath in wait of a referendum! Oh sure, the Harper government will inevitably manage to bumble and stumble its way into a constitutional crisis but that is for another day -- probably several years off.
This Prime Minister will discover that nothing much of significance is bound to be negotiated via adminstrative agreement. Would it not be ironic if Harper ended up being the man who lost Canada. What a one-line notation for the history books...
Now turning to Jean Charest's replacement: a little bird told me today that my candidate is looking to be Ignatieffed. (Sigh.) I don't know about you but as far as I'm concerned, if a guy or gal isn't willing to enthusiastically go through the rough and tumble of a contested leadership race, then that person isn't worth one cent as a potential leader.
Opportunity is around the corner. It's only a matter of when Marois' government comes crashing down. We need to be ready with the strongest possible Quebec Liberal leader in place. Does that mean a "name" who is practically instantly recognizable in the province? We'll find out soon enough.
[updated Thu Sep 06 20:14:36 -0400 2012]
06 Sep 20:14
4 replies so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
Lawson1945
Say No To the Nexen Deal we do not need a state owned company in our natural resources and the wrong time to have Pardis in this department, if passed royalities must be increased there fold, export tax at the point of departure paid in USA cash before the departure is allowed stop pandering to these g.d. Chinese in Canada also we do not need them unless born here.
[updated Fri Sep 07 03:01:06 -0400 2012]
07 Sep 03:01
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Après Charest.
If you actually give a damn about who might just run for the Quebec Liberal leadership, a slew of names is being floated in the francophone and Quebec press. I won't be going through the list because my doctor tells me I should be allergic to the possibility of libel!
What I will say is that from what I've read so far, this year's crop can best be described as stunted...last time, the party famously went outside to pry Jean Charest from his Commons seat. Will it happen again? For the sake of Canadian federalism, I hope so.
So far, only one thing's clear: Jean-Marc Fournier is definitely out. Some people are actually making noises about him serving as interim leader. Call me skeptical. I doubt he'll want to serve in such a thankless and unrewarding capacity.
[updated Fri Sep 07 18:26:33 -0400 2012]
07 Sep 18:26
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Clarity Act: Why The Liberals Are At An Electoral Crossroads.
Remember when I said it was so easy in Ottawa to be a student of history and yet learn nothing. This matter is a prime example of that. The Clarity Act is a flawed insurance policy -- one I pray we will never come to use.
It is not supposed to be an instrument by which Quebec gets to move closer to sovereignty. And yet, that is what it risks becoming if the Liberals seriously entertain presenting a motion in the Commons that will not only embarrass some of their political opponents but also play right into the hands of the Marois minority-government-elect.
Some Liberals seem not to be content with having reverted to the status of political irrelevance in Quebec. They are seeking to move that process one step further along and reach the mark of being politically insignificant in La belle province.
Keeping Canada united is not about scoring cheap brownie points against New Democrats. It's about doing whatever you can, each and every day of your political life to cement Quebec to Canada. Some Liberals appear to believe otherwise. And those are precisely the people who are prepared to hand Pauline Marois the club with which to beat Canada and federalism.
If Liberals are foolish enough to go down that road, mark my words that when the next Quebec election comes around (and it will be sooner rather than later under such a beneficial scenario for the Parti Québécois), Pauline will win a majority mandate and we will see the referendum machinery put into place after having sufficiently stoked Quebecers against the Clarity federalists.
Liberals have a choice: our party can be part of the national unity fix or we can be at least partially responsible for the exact opposite.
Our next leader will not only need brains but he or she will also need all the sang froid that can possibly be mustered.
[updated Sun Sep 09 23:02:19 -0400 2012]
09 Sep 23:02
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
A Funny Thing Those Pesky Best-Before Dates!
Some get it just about right -- they spot oblivion around the corner and being proudly sentient, they react accordingly. Brian Mulroney immediately comes to mind. Others wouldn't get it even if you hit them over the head with it. Think Jean Charest.
That brings us to our illustrious Prime Minister: what I wouldn't give to know what those little grey cells are contemplating. Sure, he picked up a property in Calgary but that really means diddly. Part of the guy is convinced another majority is his for the taking but the more serious Stephen Harper must have nagging doubts. Especially after Charest. No question Harper will never lose his seat but can he keep the stitched coalition together once both major opposition parties have new blood at the head? Interesting dilemma for a man who has been in the chair for some time now.
Does he dare take one more kick at the can? In the final analysis, I guess it will depend whether either of the opposition leaders hit it off with the voting public. As things stand now, no one is exactly mad about Stephen but he's nonetheless widely seen as competent and steady. A default prime minister, if you will.
The die has been cast in NDP ranks and Liberals will soon chart their political destiny. Will providence reserve life-changing moments for any of these leaders? Only shadow knows.
[updated Thu Sep 13 03:15:25 -0400 2012]
13 Sep 03:15
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
L O U G H E E D: Statesmanship Personified.
There's a reason why some people will die as federal Progressive Conservatives. Think Robert Stanfield, Hugh Segal and others who made their mark in Ottawa. Across provinces, Canadians exemplified the best traditions of the provincial PCs -- among them Bill Davis and Peter Lougheed.
I can only speak from personal perception: the man struck me as a tireless advocate for his province but also as a person committed to maintaining and strengthening the Canadian political family. One sensed that watching Lougheed at work was to observe the deliberate but yet understated and quiet effort of nation-building.
A gentleman with enough personal credibility and respect in his province to be able to reach substantive agreements with the Trudeau Liberals. Never an easy task but so much more so when passions are inflamed and constituent opinions polarized. None of that stopped Lougheed from seeking and doing deals that were in the national interest. In short, a true statesman in every sense of the word.
What today's political leaders need to realize is that statesmanship is not a craft taught in school. It's not reserved for a particular type of person -- it lies within us all provided we are willing to search it out and harness those abilities. That was Peter Lougheed.
Imagine what marvels we could accomplish if we had more Lougheeds sitting in every federal, provincial and territorial assembly. Building partnerships across party lines should be the name of the game -- along with forming the same kind of solid, reliable alliances with essential stakeholders.
Are we as Canadians truly able to live up to Lougheed's example? Are exemplary acts of statesmanship about to be visited upon us by today's leaders? In an ideal world, one would hope so. In contemporary federal and provincial politics, one's outlook would seem to be consigned to despair.
Only Canada will be the worse for it.
[updated Sat Sep 15 23:27:31 -0400 2012]
15 Sep 23:27
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Liberal Leadership Race: Ce n'est que partie remise, mais pour qui?
The longer this goes without Justin Trudeau formally declaring, the more I start to wonder whether he sees himself as a future party leader. Might it really turn out to be a contest between now or never or will Trudeau actually take the plunge at some point in the future? Only Justin knows that answer and the rest of us including his team get to play the waiting game -- but that can't last much longer.
Now suppose Trudeau takes a pass. How will that change the dynamic of the race? Coyne is in but is not seen by many Liberals as a potential leader. The usual suspects -- in no particular order -- Leblanc, Garneau and even Cauchon seem to be waiting for a cue from Trudeau.
On the anglophone side, Dalton McGuinty is definitely out. MHF is still looking at it and the party rests in the good hands of Bob Rae. Call me overly cynical and jaded but something tells me that if Justin politely declines, we may see a sudden and unexpected vacancy in the interim leadership.
You all know my views about Rae. No need to repeat them here. Suffice it to say that without Trudeau, the race becomes an entirely new ball game -- one that might prove too tempting for Bob.
My beef with Bob has never been about his competence, stature or FEDERAL leadership abilities. Even his age is not the primary reason why the party should be cautious in choosing the next leader. All that being said, do I discount entirely the possibility that he might take a second look at it? Stranger things have been known to happen in politics although they usually do not end well.
In the final analysis, Trudeau's decision may impact more than his potential candidacy. File this one under pure speculation, but park it in the back of your mind just in case.
[updated Mon Sep 17 07:14:41 -0400 2012]
17 Sep 07:14
No replies yet. Join this conversationHide this conversation.
RonaldODowd
Climate...and Cash!
You know what, I won't be changing any minds here on global warming, its negative effects or the detrimental consequences of man-made action on the environment.
So how's about taking another tact -- what would be the odds of anyone landing an exceedingly well paying long-term job in the...say Canadian petroleum sector, if one were to deny the environmentally obvious!?
Usually when one is concerned about nest-feathering, one thinks of a multitude of types of birds. In today's economic reality, the rules of the game ah, seem to be changing -- with more and more people personally preoccupied with individual nest-feathering.
Interesting, isn't it. Also, rather sad.
[updated Wed Sep 19 21:38:14 -0400 2012]
19 Sep 21:38
1 reply so far. Join this conversationHide this conversation.