40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Incinerator

Good, if we let Elizabeth May in why don't the CBC let the Marijuana Party & Communist Party join the debate too? This is a major parties' leaders debate, not a "My fringe party don't have any elected MPs but I want to show how dumb my platform is" debate.

An Independent who crossed the floor against the will of his riding doesn't count as an elected MP of the Greens by the way.

Agree fully. This is actually good for the greens because they are essentially a protest party and a place to park protest votes. If May actually made the debate and had to articulate their policies on Health Care and the economy among others, many who wanted to throw their vote away on the green party might actually think twice. This way all May has to do to ensure another 7% and shore up more funding is play up the "Our country has lost it's democracy because we didn't let the silly party debate the serious candidates" issue and voila, there's bound to be a few normally Red Tory idiots angry with the conservatives who will somehow think that a Green Party vote is one in favor of a more libertarian agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[pepper24]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The NDP would do well with the working man if they simply didnt have the far far far left wing of the party. Their core values should appeal to all working people but its the wild extremes that drive people away, and they will always do that.

Agreed, many of their social and environmental stances I could tolerate. Once you get into the economy, taxes etc. that's when they lose me. Maybe we'll see the day when they're the opposition party but that won't be anytime soon.

The Liberals (left center) and Conservatives (right center) will be the main 2 parties for years to come.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by lchoy

not sure if this belongs here or a new thread
The Green Party has been barred from the Leader's Debate
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/s...s-debates.html

I don't know, I wasn't planning on voting Green, but with support from across the country and their very first MP, I thought they should have been included
Thoughts on CP?

Its pretty simple really. No elected MPs = Not a Major Party. Elected MPs changing affiliation don't count because they weren't elected to that party. Reform and the Alberta Alliance are two precedents. The Greens will likely get their first elected MP soon, and with that, admission to the next leader's debate.

As for whether the Bloc belongs or not, the electorate will eventually decide if they are still legitimate. For now, they hold a pile of seats, and are a major player where they run. Reform didn't run east of Ontario for the longest time, and their participation in Ontario was spotty at best, yet they were never refused once they had their one seat minimum.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Looks like Harper will cut the excise tax on Diesel Fuel if elected. I think the article said it was only 2 cents but I will take whatever we can dave.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/s...-fuel-tax.html

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Looks like Harper will cut the excise tax on Diesel Fuel if elected. I think the article said it was only 2 cents but I will take whatever we can dave.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/s...-fuel-tax.html

*sigh*

Gotta love populist policies that are completely counter-productive to larger government goals like, I don't know, reducing GHG emissions.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

*sigh*

Gotta love populist policies that are completely counter-productive to larger government goals like, I don't know, reducing GHG emissions.

Most vehicles that run on diesel are going to run just as much whether there is a tax on it or not seeing as how these are mostly commercial vehicles. The tax will mostly just increase inflation on goods.

If we want to cut down on GHG emmissions from diesel, then we should buy locally more often (of course this can be a problem when you live in the west and the north).

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

*sigh*

Gotta love populist policies that are completely counter-productive to larger government goals like, I don't know, reducing GHG emissions.

It's funny that Harper should propose a fuel tax cut today, when just this morning I came across this article from a Harvard economics professor (and former chair of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers) who argued that fuel taxes in America are actually too low. He even stated that if global climate change is a load of BS and GHG emissions are not the major issue we think they are, there are still numerous economic reasons to raise gas taxes to encourage less driving, such as traffic congestion (and the resulting necessity to build more roadway infrastructure), smog, motor vehicle accidents/fatalities, insurance claims, etc.

//

In other news, does anyone remember this Conservative Party ad from the last election? The insinutation of that spot, of course, was that negative campaign tactics should not be rewarded by Canadian voters on election day.

Now, 2.5 years later, we're not even 48 hours into the campaign and the CPC has had to modify an attack ad because it was overly negative.

Stay classy, Mr. Harper.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Most vehicles that run on diesel are going to run just as much whether there is a tax on it or not seeing as how these are mostly commercial vehicles. The tax will mostly just increase inflation on goods.

If we want to cut down on GHG emmissions from diesel, then we should buy locally more often (of course this can be a problem when you live in the west and the north).

Surely a small cut in fuel taxes will not affect consumption much, if at all. But, it's pretty widely regarded that pricing carbon is necessary to cost-efficiently reduce emissions. What Harper has proposed is to take a step in the opposite direction.

Further proof that he could give a shart about climate change.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It's funny that Harper should propose a fuel tax cut today, when just this morning I came across this article from a Harvard economics professor (and former chair of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers) who argued that fuel taxes in America are actually too low. He even stated that if global climate change is a load of BS and GHG emissions are not the major issue we think they are, there are still numerous economic reasons to raise gas taxes to encourage less driving, such as traffic congestion (and the resulting necessity to build more roadway infrastructure), smog, motor vehicle accidents/fatalities, insurance claims, etc.

Of course, fuel in the US tends to cost about 20 cents/litre less than in Canada. There's actually a case for that to be true there.

In Canada, its a different story, and with a certain province of 13 million teetering on the brink of an economic meltdown, surely its a good idea to try to help by increasing competitiveness and lowering costs? Or maybe we should add some more fuel taxes, and carbon taxes and really help the world at the cost of our economy and citizens...

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Of course, fuel in the US tends to cost about 20 cents/litre less than in Canada. There's actually a case for that to be true there.

In Canada, its a different story, and with a certain province of 13 million teetering on the brink of an economic meltdown, surely its a good idea to try to help by increasing competitiveness and lowering costs? Or maybe we should add some more fuel taxes, and carbon taxes and really help the world at the cost of our economy and citizens...

Most modelling work predicts that even relatively high carbon prices like 75$ per tonne would have small effects on GDP. Small meaning a 1-3% reduction in GDP from a base scenario with no carbon price.

So, no, we aren't talking about hellfire and brimstone here.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Of course, fuel in the US tends to cost about 20 cents/litre less than in Canada. There's actually a case for that to be true there.

Fuel taxes in North America should be on par with what they are in Europe and Japan. If you read the article I linked, you'll notice that the author claims that higher gas taxes will lead to less demand for fuel which will in turn lower the price of oil on the global market. Of course, he was talking specifically about the United States, and our fuel usage is a drop in the bucket compared to their's, but our per capita usage isn't significantly lower. In fact, Canada is the second-highest consumer of energy per person amongst the Western democracies.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...age-per-person

In Canada, its a different story, and with a certain province of 13 million teetering on the brink of an economic meltdown, surely its a good idea to try to help by increasing competitiveness and lowering costs? Or maybe we should add some more fuel taxes, and carbon taxes and really help the world at the cost of our economy and citizens...

An increased fuel tax would only be economically viable if it was offset with reduced income and corporate taxes (which is precisely what is stated in the linked article). Dion's proposal does exactly that, but whether you can trust him to actually follow through with that promise is, of course, a personal decision.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Surely a small cut in fuel taxes will not affect consumption much, if at all. But, it's pretty widely regarded that pricing carbon is necessary to cost-efficiently reduce emissions. What Harper has proposed is to take a step in the opposite direction.

This message is also further proof that you didn't even read FA's message.

He stated clearly: "Most vehicles that run on diesel are going to run just as much whether there is a tax on it or not seeing as how these are mostly commercial vehicles."

The cut or raise in Diesel taxes will not have much of an impact on consumption, nor does it appear to be intended to do so.

Not only will it have the Conservatives stand directly opposite to the Liberals' Carbon Tax, but it will also have an impact on the 'slowing' economy (less costs, thus less reason to pull back) - also directly opposite to the effect that the Carbon Tax would have.

Isn't it also widely believed that Diesel is a 'cleaner burning' fuel than Gasoline?

Further proof that he could give a shart about climate change.

There are many ways to skin a cat...

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

An increased fuel tax would only be economically viable if it was offset with reduced income and corporate taxes (which is precisely what is stated in the linked article). Dion's proposal does exactly that, but whether you can trust him to actually follow through with that promise is, of course, a personal decision.

I think that's exactly what this election for Dion comes down to for me and probably a bunch of different voters. Quite frankly my opinion on the Liberals is that when it comes to party philosophy it really comes down to power for power's sake. Any good governance that comes out of them is a byproduct of their own ambitions to pick winners and losers in this country.

What happened the past 2.5 years is Harper reduced the GST 2% and cut taxes down to revenue levels that almost put us in danger of a yearly deficit when the economy is in a downturn. Liberals will hammer on this point this campaign. However the real reason they don't like this is because that 10 billion dollar cushion was used by them in the past to buy votes, pad the party's finances, and reward their friends. The way I see it is I'd rather the cash be in my pocket than spent in this manner.

With the carbon tax they can take in the revenue and distribute it in the form of tax cuts and incentives to whomever they feel based on whatever criteria they choose (Which is why he's not applying it to gasoline, and providing addtional incentives to truckers etc. The criteria has been politically engineered as opposed to really doing what's best for carbon reduction). The end effect is once again the Liberals picking winners and losers and wielding more power. This kind of garbage makes Layton's cap and trade system seem more economically, environmentally, and politically responsible on a relative basis (I feel really dirty saying that but it's the truth).

[Canada 02]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

The web ad at www.notaleader.ca still shows a puffin flying around Mr. Dion, but it no longer defecates on his shoulder. Instead, it now links through to a video of Michael Ignatieff saying: “And they put their excrement in one place, they hide their excrement. This seems to me to be a symbol of what our party should be.”

[Incinerator]

The Cornerstone platform of any Liberal government.

[MarchHare]

What happened the past 2.5 years is Harper reduced the GST 2% and cut taxes down to revenue levels that almost put us in danger of a yearly deficit when the economy is in a downturn. Liberals will hammer on this point this campaign. However the real reason they don't like this is because that 10 billion dollar cushion was used by them in the past to buy votes, pad the party's finances, and reward their friends. The way I see it is I'd rather the cash be in my pocket than spent in this manner.

Which is not at all like what the Harper Conservatives did with their recent corporate welfare hand-outs to Bombardier and Ford, right?

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Which is not at all like what the Harper Conservatives did with their recent corporate welfare hand-outs to Bombardier and Ford, right?

It is true and politically calculated as well, but the magnitude of the Liberal support and bailouts has not been reached and cannot be reached because they eliminated that surplus cushion and budgeted more for debt reduciton. They also didn't launder money through Quebec ad agencies either.

I think for a lot of Canadians the Liberals need to do more to eliminate the stink from the previous administration. Picking someone who was around for the entire ride to be leader now was a terrible mistake.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

In Canada, its a different story, and with a certain province of 13 million teetering on the brink of an economic meltdown, surely its a good idea to try to help by increasing competitiveness and lowering costs?

Bravo Eddie.... Pure coincidence that the increase in Royalties happen at the same time as this economic slow down? I think not.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If you read the article I linked, you'll notice that the author claims that higher gas taxes will lead to less demand for fuel which will in turn lower the price of oil on the global market.

Until OPEC does what they're already meeting to do - lower their supply so that the price of oil stays high.... Then we're just damaging our economy for the benefit of OPEC.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

An increased fuel tax would only be economically viable if it was offset with reduced income and corporate taxes (which is precisely what is stated in the linked article). Dion's proposal does exactly that, but whether you can trust him to actually follow through with that promise is, of course, a personal decision.

The problem with this whole thing is that it is being presented way to simplistically and way too narrow in its focus.

It would be tremendously damaging to those who are in rural settings and would force yet another migration to the cities.

Poor people, who do not own cars, still need to pay for the increase in transportation costs (built into the price of products), the increase in heating costs (for their home and store/factory/warehouse/etc), the increase in property taxes (due to cities/provinces needing more revenue to pay for increases in fuel, heat, electricity, etc, etc), and it all adds up.

Farmers, who need fuel and fertilizer and all sorts of petroleum products would be hit extremely hard. This would result in an increase in food costs.


Honestly, I can't see the benefit for all the harm. Sure it could have some environmental benefit, but there are many other ways that could be achieved. Instead of doing work ahead of time to find the greatest benefit with the least impact, Dion and his plan is finding whatever they can do with the least (government) effort. No foresight, no evaluation of impact (until lately - $900 Million to help farmers, forestry workers, fishers and truckers - which obviously has to come from increased taxes elsewhere).

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../politics/home

Brutally immature. I hope the person who put that ad together and authorizes it gets disciplined. I can't imagine that the PM or any of the senior Conservatives would have approved of it. It strikes of some kind of young university or high school prank.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Fuel taxes in North America should be on par with what they are in Europe and Japan.

Dude, do you realize that Canada is larger than all of Europe? It is much straight forward in Europe to have high taxes on gasoline as it is realatively small, with a large population base and significant mass trans infrastructure.

If we have $2.50-$3.00 gasoline in Canada, NO one would be able to go to work because it would cost WAY to much.