Saskatoon real estate: Week in review (November 24-28 2008)
Following a week that produced a strong bounce in residential unit sales, Saskatoon real estate market activity slipped back to weaker levels as agents reported firm sales on just 37 properties including 28 detached houses and 9 condos. Typically, both sales and listings are expected to weaken as we move into December so the weekly updates may be less than exciting over the next month. On the other hand, buyers are likely to find that seller motivation increases as activity weakens so we may see some interesting changes in prices and in underbid activity. Stay tuned.
New listing activity also weakened slightly from the previous week with the introduction of just 55 houses and 22 condominiums to the Saskatoon MLS. Additionally, 19 of 41 cancelled listings found their way back to the system as new listings. Total active listings declined just slightly falling to a total of 1,534 units including 922 single-family homes and 511 condominiums.
Click the image for a larger version of the graph.
A couple of $500K plus home sales pushed the average selling price of a Saskatoon home higher to $293,424, up about $18,000 from the previous week. That change moved the six-week average slightly higher to $285,086 but the four-week median managed to remain pretty much consistent for the thirteenth week in a row. Based on the apparent trend of a falling average and a stable median, I can only conclude that active buyers are opting for a little more home, instead of a little less budget.
Click the image for a larger version of the graph.
Buyers applied more pressure and benefited by growing the gap between list price and sale price as the average underbid increased from $12,623 last week to $15,174 this week. The percentage of homes that sold within $10,000 of the asking price slipped below 50 again while the $10,001-$15,000 and the over $25K category swelled. This past week also produced two overbid sales, something we haven’t seen in a while. They were both on new homes so it’s quite possible that the builder and the buyer agreed to additional improvements that pushed the price higher. 88 sellers changed their pricing strategy over the past week.
See a Google map displaying the boundaries of Saskatoon real estate “areas” here
Data collection and calculation for our statistical reports
I’m always happy to answer your Saskatoon real estate questions. All of my contact info is here. Please feel free to call or email.
Follow our daily updates on Twitter @SaskatoonHomes.
Norm Fisher
Royal LePage Saskatoon Real Estate
55 comments so far. We'd love to hear your thoughts.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:44 PM
I’m really amazed at the stability of the inventory: the number of units for sale really doesn’t seem to be dropping very much.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Norm, do you have the ability to look at the difference in the statistics between the areas?
That is, it would be interesting to see the median/average graph for each of areas 1 – 5.
Are we seeing any trends in terms of the areas? At one point I felt that some of the areas were overvalued simply because of the general trend in the market.
At this point, are certain areas dropping faster than other areas in terms of median and average?
April 24th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Yes, I have seen these but it tells us nothing in terms of the rate of change comparatively between the areas unless you pull up all of them and try to visually compare. I was hoping it would be relatively easy for you to try to do graphically but if not then so be it.
Thanks
April 24th, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Im curious jrochest did you think that inventory levels were going have a big drop off?It seems to me that you have always held to the belief that inventory levels would remain high until there was a large price correction.Does that mean you think prices have dropped enough?Considering all the new construction that was still taking place within the last 2 months I’m very surprized that the inventory levels are dropped almost 15% a couple months.Granted alot of those houses that were taken off could be put back on in the spring time.Guess we’ll see in Feb.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Kevin,
I see where you’re coming from. Seems to me that I worked on something like that when I was experimenting with the new visuals but it doesn’t seem to be handy and I’m up to my neck in work right now. Leave this with me please. Perhaps I can produce something for my next monthly review which should be up next week.
jrochest,
Just had a look back. Listings peaked at about 1780ish during the week of September 22. Like C White, I was also thinking that 15% was a pretty strong slide over two months but maybe I’m kidding myself.
I’ll let you guys know in the morning how many property listings expire tonight.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Hey Norm,
would you be able to tell us how many listed properties are vacant?
Thanks in advance
April 24th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Carl,
637 of 1534 are vacant. I suspect that 5-10% of those are either pre-construction or under construction and not yet ready for occupancy.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:54 PM
“637 of 1534 are vacant. I suspect that 5-10% of those are either pre-construction or under construction and not yet ready for occupancy.
”
If I remember correctly this number has remained consistent over the last 6 months or so, please correct me if I am wrong. Is this normal for alot of listed properties to be vacant, or are speculators still sitting on their properties, or are builder supplying too many houses, or am I way off track? What do other make of this?
April 24th, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Norm,
I am not sure how many realtors there are, but I am guessing more than there were sales last month. 4 sales and 2 conditional sales. Great job by Saskatoon’s No.1 realtor and realtor blog.
I am not sucking up, I really believe you one of Saskatoon’s most honest, reliable realtors who knows the market and is realistic. Thank you for your work.
3 cheers for Norm:)
April 24th, 2009 at 3:01 PM
Hey all –
I expected inventory to fall over the winter months and then rise again in the spring: I’m surprised at the number of sellers who are letting their properties sit.
I don’t think this is a normal seasonal drop in inventory, not historically. According to Norm’s figures:
04: listings peak at 729 (August), drop to 534 (Dec)
O5: listings peak at 738 (May), drop to 449 (Dec)
06: listings peak at 650 (May), drop to 252 (Dec)
07: listings peak at 650 (October), drop to 346 (Dec)
So, with my lousy math, it looks like inventory dropped by 27% in 04, 40% in 05, 62% in 06, and 47% in 07.
I assume the 06 trough was because the buying frenzy had already started; everything that wasn’t nailed down was being bought. But if 04 and 05 were ‘normal’ years, then 30 to 40% is normal, and 15% isn’t a very big decline at all.
Mind you, we aren’t at the end of December yet, so we’ll have to see.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:01 PM
And I second the three cheers for Norm. Good realtors do well in bad times: ergo, Norm’s a good realtor.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Touche jroch, the seasonal drop in inventory this year may be less than normal – ie. a seasonal adjusted increase in inventory
I personally know a reasonable number of people who couldn’t sell their town houses and condos and are just waiting until next year. Makes sense, as a lot of the shortage in units was from renters being kicked out for conversions. Now with those, and speculation condos trying to be sold, inventory is up. Either they are sold at a loss, rented (again) at the expense of the tight rental market, or reintroduced next year …
Not sure if a bunch of investors sitting on empty condos means market is weaker than appears…
April 24th, 2009 at 3:03 PM
Crikey, just caught your response to my comments on American GDP from the last post. I was referring to government debt in relation to the bailout stuff etc. Last year, 2007, most European countries, and Canada as well, had worse public or government debt to GDP ratios than the United States did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
Also this from Wikipedia on the economy of the US
“While the U.S. national debt is the world’s largest in absolute size, a more convenient measure is that of its size relative to the nation’s GDP. When the national debt is put into this perspective it appears considerably less today than in past years, particularly during World War II. By this measure, it is also considerably less than those of other industrialized nations such as Japan and roughly equivalent to those of several western European nations.”
Actually, looking at the chart linked below, the late 1940s and early 1950s seem particularly bad for debt to GDP ratios.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
It’s true the US has problems going forward, funding things like Medicaid in the future, but doesn’t look like it is anywhere near slipping into insolvency. People also point out all the money being spent on the various elements of the ‘bailout’, but most of that money isn’t lost, so to speak. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were nationalized at a big expense, but their assets outweighed their liabilities. And 98 percent of their loans were performing. Same with all the liquidity being made available. Bank shares may turn the Fed a profit in a year or two. Anyway, more on the fact that bailout money isn’t neccesarily lost money here:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/26/news/economy/where_bailout_stands/index.htm?postversion=2008112813
I’m not arguing there isn’t a lot of *** hitting the fan out there, and that consumers are pretty tapped out, just pointing out that the US isn’t quite the sinking ship it is sometimes made out to be in the press these days.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Mark, these numbers are only believable if you believe that the math behind them is solid. Some people say that the US GDP is overstated by 30-40% using ‘Enron math’, which puts quite a different spin on the debt-to-GDP.
As to the money not being ‘lost forever’ … don’t kid yourself. It is. Once you get down into the details of these gifts — and that is what they are, especially this latest Citibank bailout — things become a little more clear. Everyone here knows that the USA is riding a housing bubble, right? Well, the ‘assets’ this money is being loaned against are those same mortgages on those same bubble houses, AT THEIR BUBBLE VALUE. So if a house in California has a $800k mortgage, but could sell in today’s market for $400k (at best), the US Government is accepting that mortgage as $800k worth of collateral. Anyone here expect to see that house hit that price again any time in the next 10-20 years?
It’s worse than that, but this is the simplest and easiest example.
I was introduced to Chris Martenson’s website by a friend, and I strongly recommend spending a few hours viewing his online Crash Course for a very easy to follow primer on money, finance, and the (US) economy in general. Amazingly well put-together, very easy for even a layman to understand.
For the specific chapter on Fuzzy Numbers, see:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse/chapter-16-fuzzy-numbers
For an analysis of the Citibank rescue, see:
http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/citibank-%E2%80%93-no-questions-asked/9258
(Especially check chronological comment #11, by Erik Townsend.)
April 24th, 2009 at 3:08 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122807436496067171.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
OPEC countries not complying with oil production cuts as they need the money and they see oil prices as falling further so are trying to get out a bit more now than take losses later This is not so good for Saskathcewan
April 24th, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Giant Mines Scramble to Cut Output
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122688301012632105.html
April 24th, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Bad Crop: Commodity Currencies
Resources Exporters Like Canada Paint Rough Picture of Global Growth
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122632587332113613.html
April 24th, 2009 at 3:11 PM
In currency markets gripped by turmoil, investors have targeted one group for special punishment: big commodity exporters.
This cluster includes the currencies of countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which have significant exports of natural resources and agricultural goods.
With the global economy headed toward recession, weakening demand for everything from oil to iron ore, these currencies could face a further battering.
In many ways, these “commodity currencies” are bellwethers of global growth, soaring in good times and tanking when the picture turns grim.
Monday, they got a brief shot in the arm from news of China’s massive stimulus …
Sounds like Saskatchewan’s economy is in the worst shape long term
April 24th, 2009 at 3:11 PM
In many ways, these “commodity currencies” are bellwethers of global growth, soaring in good times and tanking when the picture turns grim.
ouch
April 24th, 2009 at 3:11 PM
remember this mentioned earlier post
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122342036252013101.html
But storm clouds may be forming. Cameco disappointed some local residents earlier this year when it opted, for now, not to add a new headquarters to the city’s low-slung skyline. The company is adding a 65,000-square-foot building next door to its current headquarters and leasing space to accommodate growth. Uncertainty in the global markets, as well as uranium prices that have come off the peak they reached in 2007, were factors in the decision, says Gord Struthers, a Cameco spokesman.
River Landing??
Valued at about C$200 million, it isn’t fully financed, but Michael E. Lobsinger, chief executive of Lake Placid, still maintains he will start construction in the next few months. Others say the timing may prove challenging as credit has seized up in Saskatoon, too.
“Hopefully, he’ll be successful,” says Tom McClocklin, president of Colliers McClocklin. “But it’s got to be a question mark.”
Uncertainty in the global markets, as well as uranium prices that have come off the peak they reached in 2007
April 24th, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Companies within this ArticlePotash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc.(POT) 61.64 -0.60
11/28
Cameco Corp.(CCJ) 17.23 -0.35
11/28
still both going down
April 24th, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Carl,
No, that’s not normal. “Normal” would be a total of 600-650 listings. To be fair, the vacancy issue is far more common with condos where 280 of 493 are vacant. With houses, you have 300 of 890 vacant, and again, many of those are not yet ready for occupancy.
George,
You’re too kind. Thank you. I’m sure that “Saskatoon’s number 1 realtor” would take issue with your comment, but hey, I appreciate your generous intentions.
jrochest,
As the famous Peter Griffin would say, “Gee, I never thought about it like that.”
Nick,
“I personally know a reasonable number of people who couldn’t sell their town houses and condos and are just waiting until next year.”
You could not talk some sense into them? A condo can still be sold at a very reasonable price, in a pretty reasonable time frame. I think these people are likely to have some regrets “next year.”
April 24th, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Norm, I completely think they should, accept the $230,000 on their 4 year old town house (one example) that was $120,000 brand new, is paid off, and was listed for about $300,000!
Then again, if all those “wait and see” people stuck their spec town houses or condos back on the market, I bet its flooded again. (okay the 120,000 was to live in for 4 years, the spec ones were bought later, for much more money, but still should take minmal gain while they still can/cut their losses! in a couple cases)
I completely agree, while spring is typically a bigger real estate time than December, this spring will likely be in the 1 to 2 year slow down.
G___ that’s basically what I’d heard about Cameco’s uncertainty for the future, as well that they questioned the long term need for office space in down town Saskatoon/weren’t super confident in holding value and thought construction costs now are more than resale later… according to a relatively high up source from within. Kind of scary, Cameco not confident in Saskatoon’s real estate market and Cameco concerned for future profitability
April 24th, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Norm “To be fair, the vacancy issue is far more common with condos where 280 of 493 are vacant”
I still don’t see how the average prices of condos haven’t fallen a lot more.
I actually think prices for houses in Saskatoon are reasonable, maybe another 5% down to go??
But condos? When there are 280 condos sitting vacant? When new condos are listed for half a millionish down town, 3/4 million for lofts, 200 to 300 (@ one time 400) for suburban mediocre at best town houses???
I think condos have a long way down to go.
Big supply, apparently 280 just waiting to be sold…
I have a friend who recently bought a condo for over 100,000 under what it used to be listed at – wasn’t even on the market anymore – sitting vacant, agent was just sitting on it hoping next year would be better, so 280 “vacant” condos are only the ones that are trying to sell now. Not sure how it could be calculated, but sure would be interesting to see how many more are vacant, but waiting to be sold/for better market.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:19 PM
“To be fair, the vacancy issue is far more common with condos where 280 of 493 are vacant.”
Norm one last thing then I’m done.
9 condos sold this week.
At 9 condos per week, 493 condos = 54.7 weeks (over one year’s supply!!)
Even the vacant 280 condos would take 31 weeks to sell
Plus some large number of condos taken off the market, but still waiting to sell.
Over half a year’s supply of vacant condos?
With a lot of new buildings and conversions on the way?
To me that says condos are way over priced.
Makes sense that builder are still building, if they were making money at $120,000, 4 years later selling for $240,000 and under cutting the $300,000 resale still must be very profitable. Still, with 9 buyers … prices should be a lot lower. Buyers just have to refuse to pay some artificial valuation on these things.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:20 PM
I lied, the last comment.
The re-listed condo would count in the “n” sales for that week, as it needed to be re-listed before sold. But it was from a larger total available condo number, as the unlisted condos that aren’t selling don’t appear in total listings, but are still out there.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Last week, the TSX saw a good rally. This week with our banana republic possibly forming a coalition government, I think it will be hit hard. All I can say is WTF? What a gong show!
This morning TSX is down 6%.
http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.wmarkets1201/BNStory/SpecialEvents2/home
This is before the market crash but GDP grew 1.3 percent in the third quarter http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/fp/canada+grew+third+quarter/1016685/story.html
April 24th, 2009 at 3:28 PM
4.1% increase yoy in wage growth for Saskatchewan. 4th among provinces
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/081128/t081128c2-eng.htm
Payroll, earnings and hours
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/081128/t081128c1-eng.htm
April 24th, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Hi Mark,
Thanks for your response. Even though we may have different assessments of what both the US debt and GDP consist of, we can both agree that they are ridiculously overindebted.
Both Fannie and Freddie had arguably had a positive net worth as of the date of their takeover. However, Fannie’s total assets to capital (leverage ratio) was about 20:1, while Freddie’s was about 70:1. These numbers increase significantly if one includes all of the mortgage-backed assets they guaranteed. These ratios are considerably higher than investment banks, which reportedly leverage around 30:1.
One of the implications of becoming “nationalized” or a bank holding company is is that it puts the entity under Fed regulation. That means that these entities are going to have to reduce leverage. Those former wild leverage ratios are gone.
This reduced risk also means reduced profit potential. When the economy does pick back up, don’t expect profits at banks and bank holding companies to come remotely close to the earnings during the last cycle. You might want to keep this in mind if you’re thinking about investing in these these or any other financial or insurance entities going forward. I seriously don’t believe that money/those earnings will be “coming back” to peak levels in the next decade or two, at least.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Crikey, Mark
If you have the time, well worth the watch
http://www.iousathemovie.com/
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 PM
wow, 4 th! and 4% growth!
following up on Alberta wages out doing Sask last year
does that justify our big house prices?
what is spending up? like another 20%?
news restaurant eating out is up 7 to 8%
maybe people in saskatchewan should start saving,
all this artificial spending beyond their means has to be propping up the economy and masking the negative effect of slumping oil, uranium and forestry
April 24th, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Regarding: Saskatchwan being in a relatively good position to weather the current and ongoing economic turmoil.
I can appreciate that we, as a province, are doing very well. Many indicators point to significant economic strength. However, we are, fundamentally, a “hewer of wood and drawer of water” to use the historically favoured metaphor. That is, we are HUGELY dependent on the extraction of natural resources – they are the bedrock of our economy. As go these resources, so do we. And we know that the commodities we are endowed with are notoriously volatile (just look at the price of oil over the past 6 months!). These things tend to go boom/bust. And we’ve been enjoying quite the boom lately….
More to the point: I think it is likely that the most diversified economies will fare the best. With the exception of those economies that are fortunate enough to be highly concentrated on sectors of relative economic strength, which could be us. I hope commodity prices stay at/return to high levels – but if they don’t, we’re not well situated to weather the storm… not at all.
Sorry for the non RE related post.
Regarding: real estate.
I hardly know any homeowners in this city. But of the handful that I do, two are planning on selling and both are waiting until spring to list.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I wonder if a carbon tax would proprosed if the coalition takes power.
Oil is at $49 a barrel. $35 anyone?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081201.woilprices1201/BNStory/energy/home
Good thing for all consumers, gasoline is at 84 cents.
http://www.saskatoongasprices.com/
April 24th, 2009 at 3:36 PM
George, I never get how people in Saskatchewan can make 4% more than last year, but increase spending by 13%. Now, news out of Regina that restaurant spending is up a Canadian highest 7%.
Kind of funny that we’re setting more spending records when our wage growth is only fourth best in Canada. Makes you wonder how people can afford this extravegant spending.
Might be time to pay off the student loans instead of buying a new house and car in Saskatoon, both of which will depreciate over the next year.
If we’re going to spend 13% more, maybe we should wait until we get a 13% raise…
April 24th, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Nick,
there are only two ways to have spending up yoy by 13% while wages are up 4%. Either we have had more people moving here from other provinces to offset the difference and/or people are spending on credit.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:37 PM
George “Either we have had more people moving here from other provinces to offset the difference and/or people are spending on credit.”
Agreed – since housing inventory is way up, as are vacant places on the market, my vote is for debt, and with a 9% (13% spending – 4% raise) difference and RRSP’s and mutual funds in free fall, increased consumer debt is a guaranteed component
April 26th, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Part of the answer to the increased spending in our province might have something to do with the higher number of people employed, not just people spending more of their income. 4 percent higher wages, sure, but also more people making those higher wages – see second link of George’s. Maybe I’m misreading how the numbers are calculated, but this could partly explain why retail sale gains are higher than weekly wage gains.
But not just people moving to the province, people coming off EI, for example is a factor. i guess EI rolls are down.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:44 AM
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html#socialcomments
kind of a big deal
hard to say Harper didn’t bring it on himself
could be good for the economy, if former RBC chief economist John McCallum is our new finance minister, might actually be more fiscally Conservative than the current band of spend happy CONS
time will tell if good for the west, though Goodale and Martin sure were
April 26th, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Also, the proposed coalition $30 billion bail out, actually less than half what Harper gave to banks, includes forestry, so potentially very good fors Saskatchewan
April 26th, 2009 at 9:45 AM
” Canada’s First Nations population has been increasingly urbanized, and nowhere is that more apparent than in Saskatoon, where the First Nations population increased by 382% from 1981 to 2001″
Not bad, but a big increase in a financially disadvantaged minority may not back up a real estate price hike and makes you wonder how many people actually are moving in from elsewhere.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Live: Dion, Layton and Duceppe face the press together
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/12/01/dion-layton-and-duceppe-face-the-press-together.aspx
Liberal,
In a time of economic uncertainty, add political uncertainty = loss of investor confidence = stock market plunge for the next while.
I have to wonder what a carbon tax would do to the west if implemented.
Scary times.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Given that their economic advisory panel consists of Paul Martin, John Manley, Frank McKenna, and Roy Romanow, I somehow don’t think that wild-end radical socialism will be the order of the day.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Hear, hear, jrochest.
Poor Stevie. It’s hard to believe how incredibly this was mishandled, however.
Live by the sword, die by the sword, I suppose.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Does Norm have ‘auto-spell correct” on this thing? I typed wild-eyed, not wild-end….
Annoying.
Anyway, yes: I think it was a little bit of brinkmanship that he pushed a touch too far.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Crikey,
“Poor Stevie?”
Hmmm. Interesting op-ed by Jonathan Kay of the National Post. “Six reasons that Stephan Harper should gladly let Stephane Dion take his job.”
http://tinyurl.com/5tjl6n
April 26th, 2009 at 9:47 AM
So if the “coalition” is to blame for the TSX crash, how do we explain the DOW crash the same day?
or the other 4 TSX crashes under Harper’s watch?
maybe Harper shouldn’t have tempted the other parties by trying to make them look bad by tying party funding to a crummy economic policy?
maybe people will see parties relying more on private donations means more corporate influence for the CONservatives? there is no such thing as free money
April 26th, 2009 at 9:47 AM
OMG yes- if I were Harper, I’d certainly want to pass along the giant s**t sandwich that is the current economy.
My “Poor Stevie” comment was in regard to a badly fumbled attempt at a further power-grab, among other things badly fumbled. Now, however much he backtracks from his horrendous miscalculations of last week’s economic update, the damage has been done.
Are you saying Harper saw all this coming and was looking for a quick way out of power to avoid choking on the aforementioned proverbial sandwich?
April 26th, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Norm – Congratulation on attracting both Saskatoon liberals to this blog…..lol.
Here is another take on the 3 Stooges and their attempt at a power grab.
http://cfmjam.corusradionetwork.com/emmis/Adler.aspx?mc=105619
April 26th, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Potential buyer,
Too funny! Thanks.
Crikey,
“Are you saying Harper saw all this coming and was looking for a quick way out of power to avoid choking on the aforementioned proverbial sandwich?
”
No. I doubt Harper could have imagined that the Liberals would so willingly serve themselves up. This story almost certainly ends with a stronger Conservative party and a weakened Liberal party.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:50 AM
“This story almost certainly ends with a stronger Conservative party and a weakened Liberal party.”
You think so?
It’s my humble estimation almost every party will end up taking it the chops on the outcome of this one, and especially the average Canadian. Self-serving coups and agandas should not take precedence of the fiscal health and stability of a nation, for any party. Particluarly not now. For the record, I vote for people, not parties.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Crikey,
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the Harper and the Conservatives are blameless in all of this, but since they have backed down on pretty much every issue that the others have put forward how can overthrowing a government elected in recent weeks really be justified, especially at such a challenging time?
April 26th, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Hello Norm,
IMHO Harper seriously misjudged the situation on Parliament Hill and tried to advance a “budget” that had nothing to do with economic help and everything to do with attempting to kick his political opponents while he thought they were down.
This had the effect of galvanizing the opposition and indicating to them, and the public, that any economic plan he may have is secondary to his objective of attempting to score politically.
Is it any wonder then that he has lost the support of Parliament? Any political leader who truly believed in parliamentary democracy and its underlying concept of confidence would have stepped down already.
Unfortunately Harper is all about consolidating his own personal power be that at the expense of the growth and development of his own party or the national welfare.
I fail to see how this is a win situation for Harper or his own neglected, stifled, and muzzled party. Harper may have backed down according to you, but what is more important is that he revealed that he has not changed, and never will, from the polemic ideologue PM to the PM who will work with the opposition for the good of the country as he had claimed.
April 26th, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Hello good General,
“IMHO Harper seriously misjudged the situation on Parliament Hill and tried to advance a “budget” that had nothing to do with economic help and everything to do with attempting to kick his political opponents while he thought they were down.”
I agree completely about Harper’s misjudgments and I have no problem holding him responsible as our nation’s leader. Harper’s proposal to eliminate public funding to political parties was mean spirited, and self-serving.
I’m guessing that you aware that the plan was to deliver a “budget” in January.
My opinion that this move will weaken the Liberals shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of the Tories. I also think it will strengthen the New Democrats.
Harper has clearly lost the confidence of Parliament. I’m not so sure that the Canadian people will agree that the proposed solution is appropriate under the circumstances. Most people that I’ve spoken to are actually surprised to learn that a non-confidence vote doesn’t necessarily result in an election.
Just a few weeks ago the Liberals had thrown Dion under the bus as a failed and unelectable leader. Now he should be Prime Minister?
April 26th, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Funny that we consider combining the seats of the parties that 2/3′s of Canadians elected as undemocratic, but some how Harper and his 1/3 mandate suspending parliament is democratic?
Think living in a province where all MP’s but one are Conservatives taints our view? (we had more say with Goodale than our token one Conservative MP anyway)
Harper tried playing politics and lost, he is the one screwing around with the economy.
Shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who knows Harper, which is why I stopped voting Conservative/Alliance after they circumvented the democratic process in kicking out Stockwell Day.
This is a party made of MP’s who quit their own party when they didn’t like their leader, who is really surprised they may quit parliament if they don’t like the other 2/3′s of Canadians getting along?
April 26th, 2009 at 9:51 AM
And I think Harper did this to make the Liberals look bad, thinking they either take the funding cut which he expected, or vote against the budget because they want continued subsidies, and they look bad.
He tried to quash the Liberals, but it back fired, people saw that he was playing a political Game with Canada’s economy, the opposition united.
And the funding for parties was actually a good move the Liberals made, back when they had strong financial support. It decreases the power of American type lobbiests and lets Canadians decide with their vote how parties are funded. What’s more democratics than that?
There is no such thing as free money, the Conservatives are indebted to whomever donates a bag of money to them or their leader.
Agreed Norm, criticizing the old leader, Dion, not the best ploy by the Liberals, but I think they were reasonable about it, emphasized more that he didn’t connect with Canadians than questioning his diligence.