The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Flubber

Nope but existing or planned regimes of cap and trade are simpler and actually have real emissions targets.

So you'd rather have the government decide how much we can pollute than pass on costs to businesses and let them decide how much pollution is profitable? Cap and trade systems require the government to be a lot more knowledgable than it is and than we'd reasonably want it to be.

Perhaps-- It seems that most of the credits are targetted at lower income, not necessarily lower footprint-- So the poorer guy with more children, burning oil, will get more money back than me despite the fact that I paid for my own windmill or whatever . I missed where personal carbon footprint gets factored into this at all-- and a lot of a person's carbon footprint is vehicle usage but his plan calls for no change to gasoline taxes ?

The carbon footprint is the thing getting taxed. Unless business choose to suck it up and not pass taxes along, the increased costs consumers should see should depend on how much carbon is emitted producing the things they buy.

The gas tax is interesting, but it looks like the existing tax on gas roughly coincides with the levels of the new tax at curreny levels of technology. In other words you're already paying about as much tax on gas as you would under the new plan. If it makes it conceptually easier, imagine the current tax on gasoline is being expanded to other things that pollute.

Its mixed messages intended to buy votes!!

I won't deny that the messenger isn't perfect. Also, he is a politician. In an ideal world there'd be a guy willing to impose this plan with no tax breaks to anyone, phased in over more time so people have time to adjust, and possibly with tax credits to make it easier to switch to greener things in the meantime. Sadly, we don't live in a perfect world.

I suspect Dion is only proposing this because he knew he had to do something desperate to try to get elected. Looking at the polls, this wasn't the thing.

As for the tax plan-- I like tax reductions-- would never oppose them but I do wonder why so much of it was focused on writing cheques to people who don't actually pay taxes

I think he sort of chickened out. The tax is pretty radical, he wanted to soften opposition to it. All it's doing is pissing off the people who were bound to be angry about it in the first place.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

The carbon footprint is the thing getting taxed. Unless business choose to suck it up and not pass taxes along, the increased costs consumers should see should depend on how much carbon is emitted producing the things they buy.

The gas tax is interesting, but it looks like the existing tax on gas roughly coincides with the levels of the new tax at curreny levels of technology. In other words you're already paying about as much tax on gas as you would under the new plan. If it makes it conceptually easier, imagine the current tax on gasoline is being expanded to other things that pollute.

What is interesting to me is that they will tax things like natural gas which is perhaps the cleanest AVAILABLE source of home heating I have. While I can wear a sweater or whatever, the reality is that you are not going to change my heating requirements all that much.

But my car? If you slap an even stiffer gas tax in place I think you can change a whole lot of behavior.

But again thats not what he wanted to do-- Instead he wanted to be seen as taxing the polluters-- those bad guys

Originally posted by Victor Galis



I won't deny that the messenger isn't perfect. Also, he is a politician.

The message leaves a lot to be desired too

Originally posted by Victor Galis



I suspect Dion is only proposing this because he knew he had to do something desperate to try to get elected. Looking at the polls, this wasn't the thing.



I think he sort of chickened out. The tax is pretty radical, he wanted to soften opposition to it. All it's doing is pissing off the people who were bound to be angry about it in the first place.

I think that hits the nail on the head-- faced with an electoral loss and worsening popularity they crafted this beast of a plan-- designed to look green while offending no one and buying the votes of the poor and the lower middle class.

It tries to do too many things, IMHO does none of them that well and is more about trying to write cheques than being green. Did you read the plan? They devote a fair bit of comments as to why tax credits need to be refundable (ie they write you a cheque if you don't have any tax paid to credit it against)

I think that the elements need to be considered separately -- First the carbon tax idea-- the good and bad of it-- Separate and apart from that is the various spending/ tax reduction proposals contained in this plan. Since these seem to have very little "green' about them, I think it is a separate discussion of what you do with revenues. Leavijng aside any green shift slant, are the tax cuts proposed by Dion the best way to go? Personally I like increasing the personal exemption as a way to cut taxes but that probably bdoesn't achieve his political goals of writing cheques

[Victor Galis]

Well, I support the carbon tax wholeheartedly. The redistribution... meh.

[notyoueither]

Dion may be being a twit about his plan, like auto plants exempt (if that's true) but I thought it would be inevitable that the feds would be coming for their piece of $100+ barrels of oil. Understandable too.

Only problem is that if it is implemented in a short-sighted, ham-handed way it could inflict a lot of harm on Alberta (and now Saskatchewan).

I would prefer a more transparent, and equitable, plan. From what I've heard.

[Victor Galis]

Well, I hear Harper has asked the Governor General to dismiss parliament, so that there can be an election on the 14th.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
Dion begins the negative campaign against Harper, using perhaps the most ridiculous and transparent attempts to discredit him that most people should dismiss outright...

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/490337

Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion previewed his election campaign strategy, accusing the Conservatives of betraying Canadians' trust and forcefully linking Prime Minister Stephen Harper to U.S. President George W. Bush.

"Stephen Harper wants to give George W. Bush a third term – in Ottawa," Dion jokingly told caucus colleagues yesterday in a speech during a meeting in Winnipeg.

If not Bush, perhaps Harper wants to revive the Tories who ran Ontario in the 1990s, he quipped. "Maybe it is to Mike Harris that he wants to give a third mandate in Ottawa."

In a refrain Canadians are likely to hear in the weeks ahead, Dion also said Harper's views are closer to Bush's than Republican presidential candidate, John McCain.

My eyes have rolled so much that it hurts.

What's more impressive is The Star's reader comments in response are heavily anti-Dion, and The Star is the left-leaning paper in the capital of Liberal country...

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/490337

Relax dude.

Harper definitely has ideas resembling Bush.

OTOH, have we heard you complain about the Tories' argument that the Green Shift is a "tax on everything"? It's even worse.

[Asher]

It actually has more of a basis. How do you think goods get to you if not by polluting methods?

It's one thing to say he has ideas resembling Bush (which means what, exactly?)

Harper supports public health care, is against the war in Iraq, etc. In a lot of ways he's more left wing than Obama, so to claim he's the next incarnation of Bush is patently ridiculous.

[Fake Boris]

A "tax on everything" that is compensated by cuts elsewhere?

And Harper is against Iraq in hindsight. He would have gone there had he been given the choice 5 years ago.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
A "tax on everything" that is compensated by cuts elsewhere?

You can't guarantee it'll be compensated by cuts elsewhere, and those cuts won't be evenly distributed amongst Canadians. Many Canadians will be taxed on everything and taxed more.

Tell me, how would tax cuts to the fishermen reduce the cost in translating in fresh produce from the coasts inland?

This is a tax on everything because it taxes something virtually everything in the economy depends on to function. From fruit to cars, it'll impact. Dion's claimed compensation is suspect at the very least, many economists don't buy into it, it doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of ways (why are some industries exempt while others aren't?). It's ill-conceived and arbitrary. It's a plan he said he wouldn't even need to change in the slightest and has already been tweaking it before it's implemented.

It's a pure experiment straight from Dion's disconnected academia world that will not play out well in the real world. Harper has grounds to call this a "tax on everything", because it's a tax on carbon which is involved with virtually everything in Canada. The fact that Dion claims it'll be completely and totally offset by politically-chosen exemptions of his choosing is not relevant nor believable.

And Harper is against Iraq in hindsight. He would have gone there had he been given the choice 5 years ago.

Now you're just trying to piss me off with this philosophy-class bull****. You know as well as I do that is not a valid point -- you have no way of knowing this. The fact is, he is against the war in Iraq. Period.

[Method]

a quick google, and you can find the letter written in march 2003 to the wall street journal co-authored by harper and stockwell day condemning the government for not participating in the war in iraq. he reconsidered his opinion before the election in 2004.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Method
a quick google, and you can find the letter written in march 2003 to the wall street journal co-authored by harper and stockwell day condemning the government for not participating in the war in iraq. he reconsidered his opinion before the election in 2004.

I can see why you didn't link it, and it's because in the letter he clearly specifies the opinion he is epousing is that of the Canadian Alliance, and not his own views.

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how party politics work in Canada.

The letter says:

"The Canadian Alliance – the official Opposition in Parliament – supports the American and British position because we share their concerns, their worries about the future if Iraq is left unattended to, and their fundamental vision of civilization and human values."

[Asher]

So the television broadcasters consortium has banned The Green Party from joining the televised debates...

Cue the Toronto Star commentators blaming Harper:

Hey Mr. Harper

In a democracy, the people get to consider the platforms and the leaders - and make their choice. Who are you to say? More of the same controlling behaviour you're known for...

STEVIE GITS HIS WAY AGIN!

Always controlling - this time he shuts out more sanity on his way to a majority so he can rule his way, and only his way!

Harper's way or the highway

Isn't it always the same? If you don't agree with Stephen Harper, he won't play with you. Hey, listen, I am not a supporter of the Green Party, but it is a national party. And just because their platform happens to be closer to the Liberals' than the Conservatives', it shouldn't mean the Greens should be excluded. Harper isn't a leader, he is authortarian. The last thing Canadians need is Mr. Harper and the Conservatives in a majority position where he can do as he pleases for four years, or until he decides he wants to break his own fixed election date law again.

Harper has nothing to lose by having May there. It's the Liberals that have more to lose by having the greens split their vote...I can't believe the stupidity of the Liberal supporters in Toronto. It is truly infuriating.

You can pick the most inane news articles from The Star and at least one comment will somehow blame Harper for it. It's ridiculously awesome.

[Asher]

Summary of the election for outsiders.

I posted this for TCO/GP on counterglow.

Stephane Dion (Liberal): Career academic turned politician. Can't speak English to save his life. Is trying to ride the "green wave" of environmentalism by introducing what he calls a "carbon tax" which is in reality a complicated wealth redistribution scheme. Of course, vote-rich Quebec and Ontario stand to gain while provinces that never vote Liberal stand to lose. He's absolutely pathetic in the polls regarding leadership, he's a distant third in the polls for leadership even though the Liberals are supposedly the naturally governing party.

Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois): No one ****ing cares. He's a Quebec separatist ****ward that only runs candidates in Quebec.

Elizabeth May (Green Party): No one ****ing cares. You can't run a serious political party when all you care about is dryhumping trees.

Jack Layton (NDP): He goes to my gym and he's a total ****ing *****. He talks politics while people are trying to work out, totally ****ing annoying. He's also a socialist **** with ****ed up ideas that would screw Alberta worse than the NEP did back in the 80s.

Stephen Harper (Conservative): No personality whatsoever. Incumbent. Bland. Generic. But in a sea of the other ****wads out there, he's going to get elected because he's the least revolting to most people. (Exception: the Liberal diehards in Toronto who post endlessly amusing comments on The Toronto Star's webpage blaming Harper for absolutely ****ing everything. Hilarious actually. Did you know it's his fault that the Dawson College shooting happened a couple months after he took office? Similarly, when the left-leaning consortium of media decided not to let the Green Party [a party whose only purpose is to steal votes from the Liberals] in on the debates, it's apparently ****ing Harper's fault)

[Flubber]

Interesting analysis Asher

I like having some Green and NDP folks around-- I think they can tend to raise some very good issues but I would shudder at the idea of some of those idealistic lefties actually running anything.


I ddi find the comments you quoted funny too-- Unless people have some evidence that Harper excluded then Greens, it just makes no sense. If I was Harper I would be hoping that the Greens bled another 5% away from the Liberals-- With Dion positioning himself leftward on the environment, the moore crowded it gets over there, the more the votes get split and the Conservatives have to lose fewer votes to the Green than anyone else.

Since the Liberals have made the environment their big campaign issue and the NDP will be in the mix too, its hard to imagine that the Green party could hit Harper with anything that the other three parties cannot or will not--The only reason harper would have to exclude the Greens was if he thought that she could out duel him or make him look bad in a debate-- But that doesn't make sense either as the more parties up their, the more fractured and disjointed the debate IMHO. With 5 people up there I don't think there can be much flow and knock out blows are unlikely

If I were harper I would be wanting every left wing group that could split the vote up there-- Let them try to duke it out differenting themselves from each other

So if harper didn't want the Greens at the debate I would be very interested to know what the rationale could be

[notyoueither]

It's everyone, but the Liberals. Why not the Liberals too?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/09/08/greens-debates.html?ref=rss

Greens can't participate in leaders debates, networks rule
Defiant May won't rule out legal challenge
Last Updated: Monday, September 8, 2008 | 9:00 PM ET Comments961Recommend674CBC News
Canada's broadcasters will not allow Green Leader Elizabeth May to participate in the leaders debates during the federal election campaign, the networks announced Monday afternoon.

'The notion that I would go into debates as someone to cheer on one other party leader is absurd.'
— Green Leader Elizabeth MayThe consortium of networks, which includes the CBC, said three of Canada's parties were opposed to May's inclusion, but did not give more details.

In recent days, the Conservatives, Bloc Québécois and the NDP have all expressed their opposition to May joining the debates.

"It became clear that if the Green party were included, there would be no leaders' debate," the consortium said in a press release.

"In the interest of Canadians, the consortium has determined that it is better to broadcast the debates with the four major party leaders, rather than not at all."

May calls decision 'anti-democratic'
The Greens' leader immediately came out firing on the decision, saying her party "may have to take further steps" and will consult with legal advisers about a possible court challenge or injunction against the debate taking place without her.

"I think it really is appalling that the media consortium is willing at this point to rewrite the rules," May said to the CBC's Don Newman on Monday, just minutes after the decision was announced.

She said the Greens are fielding 306 candidates across the country to run "against all those parties that don’t want to see us in the debates."

May also dismissed the consortium's explanation that her presence would cause the other leaders not to show up.

"I don't think Canadians will accept this for a minute," May said. "It's the decision-making of a small group of TV network executives, and to do so without clear rules that are transparent and predictable and applied fairly really is anti-democratic."

The parties that will take part in the debates are the New Democrats, the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives.

The debates will take place Oct. 1 and 2.

PM: Allowing May into debate 'unfair'
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said Monday that his party had supported May's participation, but that he himself would not participate if Conservative Leader Stephen Harper were to boycott the debates.

"I will say that I would like her to be there," Dion said.

Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe said that while he never threatened to withdraw over the issue, his preference was to have just the leaders of the four major parties in Parliament, and that the Greens should not be included in the debate because they have not elected an MP to Parliament yet.

In their opposition, the Tories and NDP cited a deal struck by May and Dion, in which they agreed not to run candidates against each other in their respective Nova Scotia and Quebec ridings.

NDP campaign spokesman Brad Lavigne confirmed late Monday that party leader Jack Layton had said he wouldn't attend the debate if May were allowed to participate.

"We believe that as someone who's endorsed Stéphane Dion to be the prime minister of Canada, she has endorsed Liberal candidates throughout the country," Lavigne said.

"We said that if the Liberals were going to have two representatives, we would not accept the invitation."

Harper said letting May participate in the debates would be in essence allowing a "second Liberal candidate" to participate, which he called "fundamentally unfair."

"Elizabeth May is not an opponent of Stéphane Dion," the prime minister said. "She is his candidate in Central Nova, and I think it would be fundamentally unfair to have two candidates who are essentially running on the same platform in the debate," Harper said at a campaign event in Richmond, B.C.

He also said he expected May to endorse the Liberal party before the end of the campaign.

'We are cutting into his base': May
But May dismissed Harper's claims, saying the prime minister was "clearly the leader who has the most to lose here.

"We are cutting into his base," she said. "And frankly, the notion that I would go into debates as someone to cheer on one other party leader is absurd."

The Greens have previously indicated that if they were excluded, they would lodge a complaint with Canada's broadcasting regulator, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, and might launch a court challenge.

Traditionally, the consortium of Canada's largest English and French television networks — CBC/Radio-Canada, CTV, Global Television and TVA — has decided which party leaders would participate in the debates.

In the December 2005 debates that preceded the 2006 election, Jim Harris — then leader of the Green party — was excluded because his party had no seats in the House of Commons.

Representation in the House of Commons is an "indisputable" criterion for inclusion in the national debate, said the CBC ombudsman in a 2006 report responding to Green party complaints.

Former Independent MP Blair Wilson, who was elected as a Liberal, joined the Greens last month as the party's first member of Parliament.