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

[Bleeding Red]

I have not taken the time to go through the 'green shift' - since it was mentioned earlier in the thread, can anyone tell me if the plan includes forcing the car manufacturers to adhere to California California Auto Board standards? (if those are the most strict)

If not then it could be fair to say that this money shift aimed directly at Alberta (wonder how Danny got NL out of the deal, since he is not whining about it?)

Using the Liberal Calculator my family saves $1300 a year or $113 a month. For some reason I don't think that $113 will cover the rise in home heating, food, or goods costs.

I also do not think the income tax savings will come through to the middle class - the Liberals are only touting help for low income earners - likely the ones the conservatives already took off the tax rolls in 2006.


The Liberals still hold tight to the idea of national day care (while promising to double Harper's beer & popcorn cheques - or do they want to stop that program today? it's hard to keep up.), Increasing arts spending so Peter Mansbridge and Don Cherry can get paid real money and the National Gallery can by another $5 million dollar painting by an American artist. (I feel more strongly about propping up failing Canadian theatres or orchestras - if people really want them then those people will by tickets and support fundraisers.)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flamefan74

Let's face it, Dion would be dumb to announce a carbon tax on gas. He would lose votes left, right and center.

And yet, if Dion's plan actually was about "changing behaviours", increasing gasoline taxes would be exactly what he would do. Afterall, isn't that the entire point of the Green Shaft? To make it more expensive to pollute?

The plan's real purpose is to buy votes by paying lip service to environmentalism, while acting as a means to fund Liberal pet projects. They are hoping that we'll be so happy to see them handing us money with their left hand that we wont notice them stealing that same money from our wallets with their right.

Nothing but smoke and mirrors. Both as environmental policy and economic policy.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Yes, the oil companies are gonna run away from Canada due to higher taxes.
They will forgo the billions they make quarterly, not annually, due to carbon regulations. Watch how fast they leave $120 oil.

And, of course, they have multitudes of places to run to. Russia will welcome them and their equipment and maybe, if the oil companies are lucky, they'll get a bottle of Stoli before the Russians boot them out. Ok, maybe not Russia.
But there's always the Arctic. Well, it'll take 30 years to get a steady flow of oil. And it will cost them around $100-$110 a barrel to get them to refineries will be a much better option than Alberta's $50-$60 a barrel.

Brr, please don't leave oil companies. Please stay and keep making billions. And get your best friends, the major natural gas companies, not to abandon their obscene profits. We promise to vote Conservative in Alberta. Don't leave without taking all the money first, pleeeeease.

It really isn't that simple.

Alberta is the most expensive place in the world to operate in for O&G companies due to the cost of labor, taxation, royalties and yes, extensive environmental regulations as it stands today. If a carbon tax is tacked on to this list of expenses, it will make operating here even less desirable and make too many projects unfeasible.

What will these "fat cat" oil companies do? Probably divert more resources into the US, Middle East and South America. But they won't go outright, naturally... they would do what they did the 1980s and keep Alberta as an administrative center for operations outside because the infrastructure is already in place. Will it hurt them? Maybe a few of the poorly run ones, but the major players will be fine.

What does that mean? Well, it means the labor shortage ends pretty fast. Little new operation, and what is done will employ far less than before. High paying, blue-collar service industries are likely to dry up fast. On the administrative side, companies will accept the fact that they have an average of 10 people employed for work that 3 or 4 could easily do... and lay off entire departments. Entire departments of much higher than average paying jobs.

Why should Dion and Layton care? Well, lets lowball the numbers. Say 40% of the 20% of workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan directly employed by O&G lose their jobs. This means less taxable income, less economic stimulus, displacement of lesser skilled workers, and increased syphoning of funds via EI and welfare. Then there's the effect on the retail and service sectors that aren't affiliated with the oilpatch directly, because these high-income earners are off the books. Less tax and higher expenditure means less money for social programs. Then you can likely expect a brain drain. Highly educated people will not want to stay and will go where the money and jobs are. Many of which will likely be transferred by the O&G companies they are currently employed with. Doctors and nurses will probably want out too, since there will be less tax revenue available to improve the public healthcare system, or, cuts to the system in lieu of lower revenue, and in a twist of irony, less disposable income for private clinics. This is notwithstanding the likely inflation of all goods and services due to added transportation expense.

Revenue neutral? Harmful only to the "fat cats"? I think not.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

And yet, if Dion's plan actually was about "changing behaviours", increasing gasoline taxes would be exactly what he would do. Afterall, isn't that the entire point of the Green Shaft? To make it more expensive to pollute?

The plan's real purpose is to buy votes by paying lip service to environmentalism, while acting as a means to fund Liberal pet projects. They are hoping that we'll be so happy to see them handing us money with their left hand that we wont notice them stealing that same money from our wallets with their right.

Nothing but smoke and mirrors. Both as environmental policy and economic policy.

Exactly. And it is most definitely NOT about reducing GHG emissions, because if it was successful in doing that, it would fail in every other aspect (the spending and/or tax cuts side). It CAN'T reduce the carbon emissions because if it does, they'll take in LESS revenue than they have forecast, and will have to either increase taxes or cut spending (or run a deficit). There is NOTHING in the plan about reducing revenue in subsequent years. NOTHING.

Those that believe this plan is about reducing GHG emissions are not looking at it objectively.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Wrong... it isn't about reducing green house gas emissions at all, it is about raising money for the government.

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, why are there exactly ZERO targets in the plan to do so?

IF it was about reducing GHG emissions, how do the Liberals plan to handle the reduced revenue they'd receive? Less emissions = less revenue for the government. Will they increase the income taxes, raise the carbon tax, reduce program spending? What?

It is a complete fallacy that this carbon tax is designed to reduce GHGs (which, by the way, Canada contributes what - 2% of the overall GHG emissions world wide - meaning that even if we reduced to 0 total GHG emissions it wouldn't make a tangible dent in the overall GHG of the planet, and any reduction we make will be absorbed by increases from China and India in a matter of months, if not days).

Whoa dude, I'm on your side. I was just stating what the Liberals are saying to prove my point. No need to go crazy on me!

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Exactly. And it is most definitely NOT about reducing GHG emissions, because if it was successful in doing that, it would fail in every other aspect (the spending and/or tax cuts side). It CAN'T reduce the carbon emissions because if it does, they'll take in LESS revenue than they have forecast, and will have to either increase taxes or cut spending (or run a deficit). There is NOTHING in the plan about reducing revenue in subsequent years. NOTHING.

I don't see where you're going with this.

It's a 4 year plan. The tax increases $10/year.

If emissions were to go down wouldn't the tax increase cover it?

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by FFR

Whoa dude, I'm on your side. I was just stating what the Liberals are saying to prove my point. No need to go crazy on me!

Didn't mean to go crazy on you, and if it came across that way my apologies. Just ticks me off when people suggest this is some panacea for environmental concerns, when clearly it isn't.

Originally Posted by Bagor

I don't see where you're going with this.

It's a 4 year plan. The tax increases $10/year.

If emissions were to go down wouldn't the tax increase cover it?

Perhaps... but that's not in their 4 year plan. If the plan is to look at emission levels and then increase the tax appropriately so we have the appropriate revenue to meet the spending demands, the plan should say that. It doesn't. It says in year 4 the tax will be this much, we'll raise this much money, and we'll spend all that money like so. If emissions do go down, all that changes... doesn't it? Either the carbon tax has to increase, other taxes have to increase, services and/or programs need to be reduced, or a deficit has to occur. The plan makes no mention of any of these obvious options.

Even the Liberals admit they have no idea how much or even if the plan will reduce emissions (google Martha Hall-Findley for confirmation).

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Perhaps... but that's not in their 4 year plan. If the plan is to look at emission levels and then increase the tax appropriately so we have the appropriate revenue to meet the spending demands, the plan should say that. It doesn't. It says in year 4 the tax will be this much, we'll raise this much money, and we'll spend all that money like so. If emissions do go down, all that changes... doesn't it? Either the carbon tax has to increase, other taxes have to increase, services and/or programs need to be reduced, or a deficit has to occur. The plan makes no mention of any of these obvious options.

If emissions go down so much that the there aren't enough to be taxed on at $40/tonne in 4 years time to provide sufficent revenue then either:

(a) the emission books are being cooked
(b) the problem is solved

[evman150]

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimesc...8-640c10b53304

The NDP candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands drops out, essentially handing the riding to Liberal Briony Penn.

Looks like the end for 11 year Reform/Alliance/Conservative MP and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

Lunn was less generous toward the NDP candidate, calling West's behaviour "completely inappropriate, unacceptable. He chose to take his clothes off in public. That's not the kind of leadership people in this riding expect." He called Penn a hypocrite "for taking her clothes off and riding through downtown Vancouver. That's not what people expect and I don't think it's OK."

Ya right Gary. People here don't actually care. If anything what Penn did is looked upon as a positive.

Glad to see that riding is finally going to get rid of that dickhole and elect someone with beliefs that reflect the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briony_Penn

[calculoso]

.... West, who was with the Green Party at the time.....

.... Penn herself has doffed her clothes while a Green party candidate....

What is it with the Green Party and nudity? Maybe we should elect ALL green candidates and have a nice nude parade?

[FFR]

Conservatives have announced new measures to protect consumers.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...e=election2008

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper announced plans Thursday to restrict text message charges and crack down on overcharging for home heating and gas pump tampering, as part of new measures to protect consumers.

He said the Conservatives, if re-elected, would make it easier to investigate and prosecute economic crimes, raise penalties for deceptive marketing, and crack down on cartels and price fixing.
The measures to restrict text message charges come after wireless communications companies announced their intention to charge customers for incoming text messages earlier this year.

[octothorp]

Latest poll numbers have the Conservatives polling at their lowest level since the election call, at 36% on both Harris and Ekos.

The good news for them is that the Liberals are also polling very low, 25% and 23%. So even if the Conservatives don't pick up seats, it's unlikely they'll lose many to the Liberals. The bad news for the Conservatives is that these are three day aggregates up to the 24th, so they don't include any swing as a result of the Richardson gaffe.

More good news for the Conservatives; while they're polling down from 2006 levels in almost every region of the country, they're up slightly in Ontario, where they absolutely need to defend if not pick up seats. They're also up in the maritimes, but I don't think it's going to result in many pickups there.

I'm not convinced that the current Green levels of 11% are going to hold, come election day. Which way are they going to break towards? In the last two elections, Green votes came in lower than their polls by a couple points, while Liberal support ended up 3% higher than generally polled. This would suggest that the Green support is more likely to move at the end for Liberals than Conservatives. On the other hand, Conservatives have actually polled better nationally than their actual votes in both of the last two elections, again by a couple percentage points. Nanos, who shows the election as closer than any of the other polls, was also the most accurate in the last two elections.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by fotze

Maybe I will choose the fartfart party.

Do it!

Canada badly needs a version of this.

http://www.omrlp.com/index.php?page=letters-from-u

A few snips from their manifesto.

It is proposed that the government should set up a terrorist training camp and that all prospective suicide bombers should have to blow themselves up as there final licensing test, with points added for mass destruction of the test range, but deducted for survival. this would undoubtedly reduce acts of terror.

Politicians to be fitted with electric shock collars, the type used to stop dogs barking, and shocked every time they lie.

Psychics should be made to prove themselves by winning both the National Lottery and the Euromillions, having correctly predicted the winning numbers.

[North East Goon]

The Calgary North East riding could be interesting with the addition of an independent conservative running.

http://rogerrichard.typepad.com/

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The Calgary North East riding could be interesting with the addition of an independent conservative running.

http://rogerrichard.typepad.com/

Not sure if this is the same guy who, but i saw some "independent" conservative who basically made their yard signs almost identical to the conservatives in a blatant attempt to con people into voting for him. Not sure why anyone would choose to vote for a con artist like that.



ahh yes it is him, obviously he's trying to pass himself off as the CPC candidate. conservative in super big bold letters, independant in teeny tiny no way you would notice them as you're driving by letters.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by North East Goon

The Calgary North East riding could be interesting with the addition of an independent conservative running.

http://rogerrichard.typepad.com/

Making it more interesting are the allegations that Shory, the Cons nominee, made some electorial violations during the nomination process. And just to confuse matters, the signs for Richard' campaign are close in look to the offical Cons colours.

Too bad Hanger retired.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Making it more interesting are the allegations that Shory, the Cons nominee, made some electorial violations during the nomination process. And just to confuse matters, the signs for Richard' campaign are close in look to the offical Cons colours.

Too bad Hanger retired.

Too bad Perry Cavanaugh wasn't successful in his bid to get the nomination. He's a very upstanding individual who would represent the community very well.

Then again, Hockey Calgary would lose their president...

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by evman150

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimesc...8-640c10b53304

The NDP candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands drops out, essentially handing the riding to Liberal Briony Penn.

Looks like the end for 11 year Reform/Alliance/Conservative MP and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn.

Ya right Gary. People here don't actually care. If anything what Penn did is looked upon as a positive.

Glad to see that riding is finally going to get rid of that dickhole and elect someone with beliefs that reflect the community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briony_Penn

This community believes in running around in the streets in the nude? Weird.

[Devils'Advocate]

One reason the Conservatives are down in the polls is that they are starting to tank in Quebec. Saying that they will "get tough on crime" and "cut government waste of subsidizing cultural programs" really speaks to their right wing base in the west of the country, but has alienated their supporters in Quebec. In Quebec, the Conservatives are the protest choice - if you don't want to vote for the separatists nor the corrupt Liberals then you vote Conservative, even if you don't agree with them 100%. But now a lot of those protest voters are being turned off by recent events and will now vote for the Bloc. The Bloc have stopped talking separation and Duceppe is only talking about making Quebec stronger.

BTW - It's not that Quebec is "pro-crime" which I have seen on some political blogs. They simply believe that detention centres with round-the-clock counselors is more likely to turn around a 14 year olds life than jail will.

I'm not saying I agree with either side.. I'm just saying that what sells in one part of the country may not sell in another part of the country. So Harper has to keep that balancing act in check.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Stranger

This community believes in running around in the streets in the nude? Weird.

It's a left-wing riding in a left-wing city, regardless of past election results. Briony Penn is a staunch environmentalist, who chose that path to call attention to her cause. She was talking about the dangers of global warming and our impact on the environment long before being "green" was a buzz word and "An Inconvenient Truth" was a household phrase. She represents perfectly what Victoria is, (arguably) the most progressive, educated city in the dominion.

I was talking to her nephew tonight, who was told by Briony's campaign manager that the riding is all but wrapped up for her. Not surprising at all, and great to see.