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

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

- He promised to do away with the gun registry. It's still there.

Are you serious? If he had a CHOICE it would be LONG gone. There is no way the opposition would allow him to do this, so he did the next best thing which was pull the plug on the endless money pit.

You are really drawing at straws on this one.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Are you serious? If he had a CHOICE it would be LONG gone. There is no way the opposition would allow him to do this, so he did the next best thing which was pull the plug on the endless money pit.

You are really drawing at straws on this one.

If he wanted it gone why not table the legislation and declare it a confidence matter? He could've received the election he wanted, without going against his own law? I don't think that D.A. is the one grasping in this situation...

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

If he wanted it gone why not table the legislation and declare it a confidence matter? He could've received the election he wanted, without going against his own law? I don't think that D.A. is the one grasping in this situation...

Good question. I figured if he wanted an election, he would have tabled something the opposition would freak out about, like the Gun Registry... or more ominous, something environment related. My guess is its optics. By throwing his hands up and saying the government doesn't work anymore, it gives the opposition less ammunition than by giving them something to shoot down and defend their collapsing of government as protecting Canada from Stephen Harper's "evil hidden agenda." This way he can say he got a lot of what he wanted done, but the opposition made it difficult to do much else.

The downside are the people who point at the election timing law, even though they aren't applicable to a minority, the negative optics are there.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Good question. I figured if he wanted an election, he would have tabled something the opposition would freak out about, like the Gun Registry... or more ominous, something environment related. My guess is its optics. By throwing his hands up and saying the government doesn't work anymore, it gives the opposition less ammunition than by giving them something to shoot down and defend their collapsing of government as protecting Canada from Stephen Harper's "evil hidden agenda." This way he can say he got a lot of what he wanted done, but the opposition made it difficult to do much else.

The downside are the people who point at the election timing law, even though they aren't applicable to a minority, the negative optics are there.

I don't really disagree with you. I think that most people realise that the government was actually working just fine though...and this was just the bset time for Harper to have an election to push for the majority that he needs to keep his job as leader.

Lets face it...I'm not voting for the guy under any circumstance, so no matter when he goes to the polls he wasn't going to convince me anyway!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

If he wanted it gone why not table the legislation and declare it a confidence matter? He could've received the election he wanted, without going against his own law? I don't think that D.A. is the one grasping in this situation...

Come on. Do you think that is the kind of thing he wants his government to fall over? Lets be honest. There are a lot of people out east that want to keep gun registry in place. It would make no sense what so ever to make his government fall over that.

To make a statement that he LIED because the registry is still in place is an incorrect statement IMO.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't really disagree with you. I think that most people realise that the government was actually working just fine though...and this was just the bset time for Harper to have an election to push for the majority that he needs to keep his job as leader.

Lets face it...I'm not voting for the guy under any circumstance, so no matter when he goes to the polls he wasn't going to convince me anyway!

There's definitely an air of opportunism... but of course there's always the threat that if the CPC make gains, but no majority, and Dion is replaced by a capable, social moderate/fiscal conservative liberal with an ounce of charisma, it could all be for nothing, and another election would be forthcoming with less positive forecasts.

I'll probably vote conservative indefinitely, but now more than ever. Since Trudeau, I've had a general understanding that the Liberals, however slimy they may be and incongruent their views are with my own, would not entertain policy that would run the country into the ground or decimate any one region, regardless of which region. I can not say that about the Dion Liberals, and obviously the NDP and the Greens. A 4% drop in GDP is simply catastrophic, and anyone who proposes policy that willingly slices even a (liberally estimated minimum) 1% off economic output should be nowhere near government. Even Chretien and Martin would agree (off the record of course).

Harper is really betting it all that the blue liberals in BC, Quebec and Ontario feel the same way.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Come on. Do you think that is the kind of thing he wants his government to fall over? Lets be honest. There are a lot of people out east that want to keep gun registry in place. It would make no sense what so ever to make his government fall over that.

To make a statement that he LIED because the registry is still in place is an incorrect statement IMO.

Instead he let his government fall over nothing though....so how set is he on getting rid of the registry? I didn't say that he lied...just that actions speak louder than words. All I'm saying is that if he really wanted to get rid of the registry he would've tabled a motion to do so.

If you take that as him lying and not getting rid of the registry that is fine. No matter how you characterize him though, obviously Harper is a political opportunist here. He stated (and I agree whole-heartedly by the way) that fixed election dates are necessary to stop elections being called for "crass" political motives. Clearly (whether this law applies to minority governments or not) his motives are "crass" here as a result. (His words, not mine!)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

There's definitely an air of opportunism... but of course there's always the threat that if the CPC make gains, but no majority, and Dion is replaced by a capable, social moderate/fiscal conservative liberal with an ounce of charisma, it could all be for nothing, and another election would be forthcoming with less positive forecasts.

I'll probably vote conservative indefinitely, but now more than ever. Since Trudeau, I've had a general understanding that the Liberals, however slimy they may be and incongruent their views are with my own, would not entertain policy that would run the country into the ground or decimate any one region, regardless of which region. I can not say that about the Dion Liberals, and obviously the NDP and the Greens. A 4% drop in GDP is simply catastrophic, and anyone who proposes policy that willingly slices even a (liberally estimated minimum) 1% off economic output should be nowhere near government. Even Chretien and Martin would agree (off the record of course).

Harper is really betting it all that the blue liberals in BC, Quebec and Ontario feel the same way.

I can certainly see your point here. If anything I would call myself a "blue" Liberal. I think that the polling in Alberta shows that while we all tend to think that the governments (both provincially and federally) are not doing enough to protect the environment, we are all still protective of the oil sands and the economy that comes with them.

I think that this is a hard question to detail any plan for though, and there are a lot of "what ifs". But what would happen to our economy based on the oil sands if a political movement came into being in the United States that simply said they would not use "dirty oil"? I don't think that this can be ignored. Kennedy stood up and said in ten years they would put a man on the moon...which to me was a far more daunting task then being free of dirty oil within the same time period and they accomplished that goal.

For Canada to sit back and just roll along as it because countries like China are not changing is foolish; the infrastructure to sell to China and India is not as extensive as it is for our neighbours to the south, and simply put, not in place. Rather than taking an attitude of
"we'll find other markets" or "they will never be able to break their reliance" what we should be doing is taking steps to be able to say "this oil is going through the strongest and most effective environmental controls in the world. We know that there is a world beyond oil and we are working on that as well, but in the meantime we are making sure that the impact on the environment is as small as possible."

As a fiscal conservative myself, if this meant that a 1% drop in growth took place in the short-term, but it preserved or even created a long-term competitive advantage then I would be willing to consider this option.

My other point here is that its an option. I am still waiting to see what the CPC option is though...which on the most important issue in years appears to be nothing but attacking the other plans as invalid.

[Ronald Pagan]

A 4% drop in GDP is simply catastrophic, and anyone who proposes policy that willingly slices even a (liberally estimated minimum) 1% off economic output should be nowhere near government. Even Chretien and Martin would agree (off the record of course).

Picking numbers out of the air? Where did you come up with this?

[transplant99]

Instead he let his government fall over nothing though....so how set is he on getting rid of the registry? I didn't say that he lied...just that actions speak louder than words. All I'm saying is that if he really wanted to get rid of the registry he would've tabled a motion to do so.

If he gets a majority...that thing will be gone faster than Usain Bolt down the track in Beijing.

If he gets another minority then he will be stopped by the Libs/NDP, so why would he have his government fall over it? Makes no sense either politically or in practicality.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

If he gets a majority...that thing will be gone faster than Usain Bolt down the track in Beijing.

If he gets another minority then he will be stopped by the Libs/NDP, so why would he have his government fall over it? Makes no sense either politically or in practicality.

Well if he wanted this election now (which he obviously did) then why not trigger the election with an issue as opposed to just deciding to go? Maybe he doesn't actually plan to get rid of the registry? Or maybe the legislation would've passed?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Slava

I can certainly see your point here. If anything I would call myself a "blue" Liberal. I think that the polling in Alberta shows that while we all tend to think that the governments (both provincially and federally) are not doing enough to protect the environment, we are all still protective of the oil sands and the economy that comes with them.

I think that this is a hard question to detail any plan for though, and there are a lot of "what ifs". But what would happen to our economy based on the oil sands if a political movement came into being in the United States that simply said they would not use "dirty oil"? I don't think that this can be ignored. Kennedy stood up and said in ten years they would put a man on the moon...which to me was a far more daunting task then being free of dirty oil within the same time period and they accomplished that goal.

For Canada to sit back and just roll along as it because countries like China are not changing is foolish; the infrastructure to sell to China and India is not as extensive as it is for our neighbours to the south, and simply put, not in place. Rather than taking an attitude of
"we'll find other markets" or "they will never be able to break their reliance" what we should be doing is taking steps to be able to say "this oil is going through the strongest and most effective environmental controls in the world. We know that there is a world beyond oil and we are working on that as well, but in the meantime we are making sure that the impact on the environment is as small as possible."

As a fiscal conservative myself, if this meant that a 1% drop in growth took place in the short-term, but it preserved or even created a long-term competitive advantage then I would be willing to consider this option.

My other point here is that its an option. I am still waiting to see what the CPC option is though...which on the most important issue in years appears to be nothing but attacking the other plans as invalid.

I think the environment is a huge concern, but the issue a lot of people have, is with the notion that taxation will make it better. Slapping a tax on something is simply lazy policy, and with something like energy (Oil/Gas/Coal/etc.), they will simply pass their costs to the next stage, and so on until the consumer is saddled with a huge burden. With things like transport, heat, and manufacturing, in a country with this size, climate and distribution, cutting down is simply not an option. I'm waiting to hear any candidate come up with a better answer than either nothing, or nose-diving the economy.

Another thing, "President Obama" will never ween America off "dirty oil." Even if he wants to (which I doubt, he's not that stupid), his advisors will give him a sturdy slap in the back of the head, and point out that the major remaining sources of oil are politically unstable, would simply love to hurt the US, commit human atrocities on a daily basis, or are rapidly depleting themselves. Going to the moon is a cakewalk compared to that bold 10 year claim. However, what the Oilsands, and Oil Shale deposits represent are a warning flag that we are likely in our last century of oil, and need to ween off it responsibly. Doing so may very well take 50 years, and those deposits will help make sure we make it. Let alone the Canadian angle. A good, solid, incentive/penalty system will help keep the oilsands and other major polluters responsible. Stay on the cutting edge, and pay little to no tax. Cheap out, and pay through the nose and lose your competitive edge. Lots of O&G companies are already doing so, because its in their best interest to be efficient and clean... and lucrative. (CO2 sequestration for example).

Taking that 1-4% of GDP out of the economy not only means tens (hundreds if 4%) of thousands of jobs, but likely that needed competitive edge to actually get ahead of the curve and speed up the switch from oil to alternative energies. For that reason, its not worth the risk.

I think its funny that the NDP attack the CPCs for a ~12% child poverty rate... yet, let the left loose with these tax schemes, and that number is likely to spike with the job losses associated with a loss in GDP, regardless of any wealth transfer schemes they may have.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Slava

Instead he let his government fall over nothing though....so how set is he on getting rid of the registry? I didn't say that he lied...just that actions speak louder than words. All I'm saying is that if he really wanted to get rid of the registry he would've tabled a motion to do so.

You are right, YOU didn't but DA did and by the way you were posting it appeared that you were supporting his claims.

Of course he could have always tabled a motion, just as he could have tabled a motion on anything. In a minority government you need to pick your battles. He wants the gun registery gone, he has eliminated most of the funding which he did not need approval from parliament. He is still working on getting rid of the program.

No matter how you characterize him though, obviously Harper is a political opportunist here.

No doubt about that

He stated (and I agree whole-heartedly by the way) that fixed election dates are necessary to stop elections being called for "crass" political motives. Clearly (whether this law applies to minority governments or not) his motives are "crass" here as a result. (His words, not mine!)

As I have stated previously, I do not agree with him just calling an election. I believe that it goes against the spirit of the legislation even though he is legally authorized to do it.

The conservatives should have thought about this when they drafted that law. They did not think that their government would last as long as it did and they certainly didn't think that the Liberals would never show up to the commons to vote on many of the conservative legislation.

SO Harper was handcuffed by his own law. Yes, they did pass much legislation but if you actually do some research into all the committees it is clear that the opposition did everything in their power to slow down the system and prevent the system from working. You have both Dion and Layton claiming all summer that they will make the government fall at the next oppertunity, then blast Harper for calling an election and then claiming that this is the most important election in our life time.

The opposition most certainly wanted an election but because Harper passed that election law it put the power into the oppositions hand to call an election and not the government. The opposition wanted an election to be called the same time as the US election for several reasons.

First, the media coverage during the of the US election would push the Canadian coverage into the corner.

Second, the opposition wanted to capitalize on the Obama mania.

Harper did the right thing for his party by calling the election earlier.

[transplant99]

Maybe he doesn't actually plan to get rid of the registry?

Why wouldn't he? Afterall he is an evil gun-toting, enviroment killing, bible thumping, anti-christ by being a Conservative....no? Beyond that, where have you ever heard that he wouldn't do it? Or are we talking hypotheticals?

Or maybe the legislation would've passed?

Seriously? If so, then why wouldn't he of tabled it?

Im missing something here I think.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

SO Harper was handcuffed by his own law. Yes, they did pass much legislation but if you actually do some research into all the committees it is clear that the opposition did everything in their power to slow down the system and prevent the system from working. You have both Dion and Layton claiming all summer that they will make the government fall at the next oppertunity, then blast Harper for calling an election and then claiming that this is the most important election in our life time.

I still place more blame for this on the Conservatives than elsewhere. After Harper's famous 200 page manual on how to disrupt and manipulate committees, it's hard not to view any dysfunctional committee as a byproduct of these tactics, in particular the house ethics committee's attempts to investigate the in-and-out scheme. Liberals, NDP and Bloc are certainly not blameless, but abusing loopholes in procedure and law is just such a pattern of Harper's tenure.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why wouldn't he? Afterall he is an evil gun-toting, enviroment killing, bible thumping, anti-christ by being a Conservative....no? Beyond that, where have you ever heard that he wouldn't do it? Or are we talking hypotheticals?



Seriously? If so, then why wouldn't he of tabled it?

Im missing something here I think.

I'm talking hypotehtically here and I've never heard him say that he wouldn't do it. It just makes me wonder why he hasn't taken action on this item even though he has had the office to do so.

If he really felt that the reason that he couldn't propose the legislation was because of the opposition being sure to vote it down though, he should've convened the house this fall and put the legislation out there knowing that it would get voted down. Then he could say " I tried to make things work, and the opposition is now forcing us to have an election that nobody wants." (or something similar).

Instead he makes no movement towards repealing the gun registry at all. Its easy to say that he will do this once there is a majority, but if he was governing as though he had a majority last year then why didn't he do it then?

[automaton 3]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well if he wanted this election now (which he obviously did) then why not trigger the election with an issue as opposed to just deciding to go? Maybe he doesn't actually plan to get rid of the registry? Or maybe the legislation would've passed?

I think it was good strategy not to trigger an election over an issue that the Liberals could potentially gain some traction on, such as the gun registry.

I think if there is a conservative majority, the gun registry will finally meet its end, asap.

I'm not a fan of getting around the fixed election date, but as I understand it at the committee level things had pretty much slowed to a crawl.

Also it appeared that the opposition parties were simply waiting for the most opportune moment, so again just good strategy to beat them to the punch.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I think the environment is a huge concern, but the issue a lot of people have, is with the notion that taxation will make it better. Slapping a tax on something is simply lazy policy, and with something like energy (Oil/Gas/Coal/etc.), they will simply pass their costs to the next stage, and so on until the consumer is saddled with a huge burden. With things like transport, heat, and manufacturing, in a country with this size, climate and distribution, cutting down is simply not an option. I'm waiting to hear any candidate come up with a better answer than either nothing, or nose-diving the economy.

Another thing, "President Obama" will never ween America off "dirty oil." Even if he wants to (which I doubt, he's not that stupid), his advisors will give him a sturdy slap in the back of the head, and point out that the major remaining sources of oil are politically unstable, would simply love to hurt the US, commit human atrocities on a daily basis, or are rapidly depleting themselves. Going to the moon is a cakewalk compared to that bold 10 year claim. However, what the Oilsands, and Oil Shale deposits represent are a warning flag that we are likely in our last century of oil, and need to ween off it responsibly. Doing so may very well take 50 years, and those deposits will help make sure we make it. Let alone the Canadian angle. A good, solid, incentive/penalty system will help keep the oilsands and other major polluters responsible. Stay on the cutting edge, and pay little to no tax. Cheap out, and pay through the nose and lose your competitive edge. Lots of O&G companies are already doing so, because its in their best interest to be efficient and clean... and lucrative. (CO2 sequestration for example).

Taking that 1-4% of GDP out of the economy not only means tens (hundreds if 4%) of thousands of jobs, but likely that needed competitive edge to actually get ahead of the curve and speed up the switch from oil to alternative energies. For that reason, its not worth the risk.

I think its funny that the NDP attack the CPCs for a ~12% child poverty rate... yet, let the left loose with these tax schemes, and that number is likely to spike with the job losses associated with a loss in GDP, regardless of any wealth transfer schemes they may have.

I think that you under-estimate the American will to succeed here. While it sounds pie in the sky to eliminate dirty oil, you have to give them credit where it is due. The Americans are the most innovative and creative society on the planet. (Believe me, I'm a pure, unabashed Canadian nationalist but even in my short-sightedness I can come to the conclusion!). If Obama came out and said that this is what they were going to do and threw some money at it in terms of R&D, or even tax breaks and the will to succeed, its a definitely reachable goal.

I'm not suggesting that the Green Shift is infallible. I'm just interested in what the counter-policy is though. Rather than just say "The Green Shift won't work" I would like to see the alternative plan that will work. Instead of saying "We are in a better position to not screw things up fiscally" show me how that is going to be accomplished. Frankly, from a non-partisan viewpoint this last budget that was walking a razor-thin line of deficit doesn't instill that confidence in me!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Picking numbers out of the air? Where did you come up with this?

Ah let see.....YOU?

They will lower economic growth by about 1 - 4% from a baseline scenario with no carbon tax

[Resolute 14]