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

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

The Liberals really FUBARed the gun registry in terms of implementation cost. It doesn't mean that anything any government does is going to be an administrative nightmare. Even now the registry exists and the administrative costs are under control. However, it's usefulness can certainly still be debated. But all that to say I'm not convinced that because some projects in the past have had huge cost overruns that I'm going to assume that all future projects will be administrative nightmares.

But as to your point regarding some magical trillionaire coming up with something that will solve the worlds problems, I think that wishful thinking. The fact is that a company making environmental friendly products is usually at an absolutely huge disadvantage to those near breaking emissions laws. If I am company X with factories that are emitting horrible amounts of pollution, what incentive do I have to clean it up? Stupid company Y spent $2billion installing scrubbers and filters, meaning their products now cost $10 more per unit than company X. It's obvious to me that company Y was stupid and should lose all their investors, no?

I promise you that will happen, that's how energy has always worked in our society. It will be the next version of Rockefeller. ... may not be a person, could be a company, but it will happen. And I would say many of the large oil companies CEO's appear to believe the same, I have seen that in communication from companies such as Chevron, BP and Shell. I would say that I have not from ExxonMobil, but they have never been confused as being one of the most innovative companies ever. And believe it or not, they spend a great deal of money on R&D as they want to be the new Rockefeller. I could be wrong but I'd guess that they spend more than anyone else (yes they make lots of money ... but they don't have to spend it on alternative development) ... which would suggest that they know the long term future is in alternatives as well.

And I guess the other difference is that you are looking at supply in isolation. What we have witnessed in a large way over the last 9 months is people decide that $1.40 gas is too uncomfortable and not sustainable in the long term. The demand for alternatives has driven car companies to make alternatives ... so I think we are seeing the evolution ... without Dion's magic plan.

As for administration ... all I learned is that they cannot manage a simple project, managing a complex project like this tax structure is just scary to me.

[Slava]

^ How long do you plan on penalizing them for this? (Not saying that I agree with you assessment...just curious!)

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ How long do you plan on penalizing them for this? (Not saying that I agree with you assessment...just curious!)

Is that to me? I don't know what you mean.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Is that to me? I don't know what you mean.

Ya, sorry. Your thought was that the Liberals have proven incompetent to run the gun registry and so you don't want them in charge of the tax system as a result because they could bungle this as well.

I just wanted an idea of how long you would hold that issue for. The Liberal caucaus is not the same group of people that installed the gun registry.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ya, sorry. Your thought was that the Liberals have proven incompetent to run the gun registry and so you don't want them in charge of the tax system as a result because they could bungle this as well.

I just wanted an idea of how long you would hold that issue for. The Liberal caucaus is not the same group of people that installed the gun registry.

hm, ok say what you will, the Conservatives have warts, Harper's personality is wierd, but you don't picture the keystone cops running into each other if you think of them implementing a new program.

That's exactly what I picture with the liberals. I guess the answer is if they had a term similar to the last conservative term without screwing up a program the way they did last time.

I would say this is regarding my second point, it's small compared to my first point. The structure itself to me is flawed.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

I just wanted an idea of how long you would hold that issue for. The Liberal caucaus is not the same group of people that installed the gun registry.

My answer would be "after another term of Conservative management".

The reason for this? It isn't only the Liberal caucus that needed to be purged. A lot of the execution is left to the bureaucrats, and I don't think that enough time has gone by for the new 'bosses' to identify and remove the weak links.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by calculoso

My answer would be "after another term of Conservative management".

The reason for this? It isn't only the Liberal caucus that needed to be purged. A lot of the execution is left to the bureaucrats, and I don't think that enough time has gone by for the new 'bosses' to identify and remove the weak links.

ya that's fair, I'd share that view.

[Slava]

^ I can see where you guys are coming from. But the issue is that the bureacracy doesn't change just because the government does. If Elizabeth May wins (lets pick someone that none of us three seems to want!), you still have those same people enacted the policy for the government.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ya, sorry. Your thought was that the Liberals have proven incompetent to run the gun registry and so you don't want them in charge of the tax system as a result because they could bungle this as well.

I just wanted an idea of how long you would hold that issue for. The Liberal caucaus is not the same group of people that installed the gun registry.

I'll jump in with a personal view on this as well: It isnt just the gun registry. There was the HRDC boondoggle, the Sea King replacement disaster (which has killed soldiers), the gross underfunding of our military as a whole.

While this is not Chretien or Martin's liberals any longer, Dion is still of that party. How long will they be held to those failures? As long as it takes for the next generation of Liberals to ascend into party leadership positions, in my view. We'll see who takes over after Dion resigns in about two months.

I agree on the bureaucracy, but I suppose that is calculoso's point. It isn't going to suddenly change because of a new government. Changing a bureaucracy is always a long term thing. The longer Harper governs the more opportunities the Conservatives have to reassign or eliminate those that need pruning.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ I can see where you guys are coming from. But the issue is that the bureacracy doesn't change just because the government does. If Elizabeth May wins (lets pick someone that none of us three seems to want!), you still have those same people enacted the policy for the government.

I agree.. but with new bosses, they'll hopefully identify the weak links, the Spendy McSpendthrifts, the Wastersons, etc and deal with them. It doesn't happen over night. It takes a while for the "good behavior period" to wear off... y'know.. the want to impress the new boss period.

As usual, the bosses take the fall, but it's the people doing the grunt work that need to be held accountable.

[JoseCuervo]

Question? I go to university in lethbridge but my riding is calgary SE.. can i go to a polling station in lethbridge and vote for that riding, or do i have to go back to calgary?

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by JoseCuervo

Question? I go to university in lethbridge but my riding is calgary SE.. can i go to a polling station in lethbridge and vote for that riding, or do i have to go back to calgary?

Return to your riding or there is a mailing but you have to go online with elections Canada to find out how. I use to go to the Osaka consulate but that is closed so now I am not sure what to do.

[flamey_mcflame]

Oooh, the dreaded gun registry. Yes, that's all the electorate is talking of. Agenda topper and front news everyday, that gun registry is. Of course, the fact that the Conservative government, in their last term, spent more of our tax dollars then any other government in Canadian history is no reason to be concerned.Nothing like a 14 percent increase in spending in two years to show there's a new sheriff in town and cutting government out of our lives is the number one priority.

The conservatives new motto should be, "We spend your money like noone's business, but we kept the name. Vote for the C." It'll be interesting when they can't keep up to their budget without tax increases or going into a deficit. And that will be big issue for the next election in October 2009. Right, "Sweaters" changed his mind on his own legislation.

Hopefully by the next election, we'll see another western uprising and there will be a new and improved reform party to split votes. Maybe they'll make the gun registry a talking point. "The West wants in and we wanna bring our rifles to kill things for fun"."

[Slava]

Originally Posted by JoseCuervo

Question? I go to university in lethbridge but my riding is calgary SE.. can i go to a polling station in lethbridge and vote for that riding, or do i have to go back to calgary?

You should take a quick check into this ahead of time (to see what you need to bring with you, or register ahead of time), but you can vote in Lethbridge.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Actually, immediate action is not required. It is desired, and I maintain that the overfocus on GHGs is not true environmentalism. If people want to go green, it takes a lot more than an obsessive over-focus on one aspect of how we pollute our world.

Where do you get this idea from?

Almost every recent scientific paper calls for immediate action to reduce GHGs. The reason is that new discoveries have shown that GHGs stay in the atmosphere much longer than previously thought, over 1000 years.

Most climate models are converging on the idea that we are approaching a safe limit of total atmospheric GHG emissions to level at 2 degree warming. In order to level we actually have to DROP our GHG emissions in parts per million to 450. In order to do so, taking all relevant carbon sink information we have about 450 Gt of emissions left to emit. Once that threshold is breached then we get into a new phase of warming above 2 degrees.

2 degrees warming is still significant by the way and will have significant costs. For one, with 2 degree warming we are committed to a sea level rise of at least 1 - 2 meters just based on thermal expansion. River deltas will be flooded. A higher degree of warming (above 2 degrees) will have untold consequences.

I suggest you actually read up on the latest scientific literature before loudly proclaiming that reducing emissions isn't an immediate priority.

Here's a good article to start:

Plattner, G.-K, R. Knutti, F. Joos, T. F. Stocker, W. von Bloh, V. Brovkin, D. Cameron, E. Driesschaert, S. Dutkiewicz, M. Eby, N. R. Edwards, T. Fichefet, J. C. Hargreaves, C. D. Jones, M. F. Loutre, H. D. Matthews, A. Mouchet, S. A. Mueller, S. Nawrath, A. Price, A. Sokolov, K. M. Strassmann, and A. J. Weaver, 2008: Long-term climate commitments projected with climate - carbon cycle models, Journal of Climate, 21, 2721-2751.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

God, no kidding eh? For someone who is so insistent on getting the "facts" straight, to blame the loss of jobs out east and the rising loonie on the Oil Sands is downright ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with the fact that world oil prices have massively increased, regardless of the Oil Sands, the fact that the American dollar is remarkably weak given their economic downturn, or the fact that Canada's manufacturing industry used a low dollar to mask innefficiency and is now paying the price.

Nope. Nothing at all. It's all Alberta's fault. Typical central Canadian, Liberal thinking.

I never said that Oil sands were the primary reason why the manufacturing sector is ailing. I do believe that oil sands investment is one of the reasons.

I do agree that manufacturing firms should have been investing in productivity when the dollar was low. Unfortunately, low productivity is endemic in Canada and not only in manufacturing. Solving this problem is a key step to improving the manufacturing sector.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Where do you get this idea from?

Nice commentary but does not address my arguments.

1. immediate action is not required. It is desired. Your statements only show why it is desired. The point, however, is that we should not be rushing blindly into bad plans because of some misplaced argument that doing ANYTHING is better than the status quo.

2. Reducing GHGs is important, but it is not the only way in which we affect and pollute our environment. A truly green society will not be created by obsessively focussing on one thing. Especially when the only thing we've come up with on that one obsession are empty plans that do more to play into a guilt trip than actually helping the environment.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I never said that Oil sands were the primary reason why the manufacturing sector is ailing. I do believe that oil sands investment is one of the reasons.

Which brings us to Jolinar's question to you... where do you live?

Your argument is a weak cop out for the mismanagement of Ontario's manufacturing. "Lets just blame Alberta."

Stupid, shortsighted and patently false.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

I never said that Oil sands were the primary reason why the manufacturing sector is ailing. I do believe that oil sands investment is one of the reasons.

I do agree that manufacturing firms should have been investing in productivity when the dollar was low. Unfortunately, low productivity is endemic in Canada and not only in manufacturing. Solving this problem is a key step to improving the manufacturing sector.

Completely disagree with you, all your stating is that the Oil Sands in terms of return on investment is a better investment then inefficient manufacturing organizations that lived off of a weak dollar to survive, but can't compete in a global economy.

[Flames in 07]

As I learned a few pages ago, don't feed the trolls.