It will be interesting if after the election nothing really has changed. Will this mean a "victory for Dion" a "loss for Harper" or will both of them be considered to have lost the election? Will the knives be out for both of them, or just one leader? GB
No conservative platform
- Thread starter up4it
- Start date
The knives will be out for Dion. But who could replace Harper? There simply is no talent in the Conservative caucus who could rplace Harper. The Liberals have mnay possible replacements.
This fits with what Dion is now saying. The liberals have a team. The Conservatives are just Harper.
This fits with what Dion is now saying. The liberals have a team. The Conservatives are just Harper.
Why then did he lower the GST rather than reducing the overall tax rate, as virtually every economist in the country recommended. The answer of course is that it was done for for political reasons rather than ecomnomic ones. Please don't be throwing around that 'Harper is an economist' BS. The true strength of a political leader is to have the right advisors and ministers not to try and run the country by himself.Sheik said:
The conservatives have been in power 2 of the last 14 years and they had a minority government to work with. If you want to lay blame on anyone for our current state look no further than the Liberal party. The NDP is a joke and Layton should be called to task for living in subsidized housing for years. it is amazing to me how short political memories are. Truthfully i cant stand our system where anyone can have party status, it completly waters down the electorial process allowing stagnent government. I also can not believe we allow the BLOC (traitors) a political voice.
Quag
Quag
Last edited:
Damn those Liberals leaving Canada with a huge surplus, and regulating the banks. Why the hell did they not leave so we would be more like the American system. Huge deficit and a bank system that has crashed.Quaggitty said:
If only Canada would have more sense and elected the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party Canada would be in so much better shape. Deficit due to huge tax breaks for the Oil companies. Deregulated banking system so it would be just as strong as the US banking system, and we would have some good Canadian soldiers fighting in Iraq. Damn damn Liberals leaving this country in such a mess.
Oh boo hoo hoo. David Miller is a cry baby and would have everyone believing that the Conservatives are neglecting Toronto. Toronto isn't the centre of the freaking universe! Ontario (especially Toronto) needs to look at the big picture. No doubt John Q Ontario Public will blindly vote Liberal again this election.Andrea Sweet said:
In some countries that would be considered treason and would constitute hanging the whole BLOC party.Quaggitty said:
Agreed evil people that live in Taronto. They've been a liv'n too high on da hog fer too long. All dem peoples that live in Ontario need to be brought down to earth. Dey need our god Steven Harper to punish dem. Dey are sinners all of dem. Destroy dem O mighty Steven, they do not worship you like Alberta does. Destroy dem mighty Steven and make dem pay for not voting fur you.pblues said:
The Liberals are responsible for the huge erosion of infrastructure, sure they ran a surplus, they refused to pay for anything! The Liberal Government got fat and lazy and thought they were above the law and under Cretian the taxpayers lined the pockets of the MP's with the sposership scandal and don't even start me on the Gun reguistry. Now the liberals have a leader that can't even answer simple question. I have supported both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the past and I can tell you this bunch of Liberals are not worth my vote! And to top it all off should the liberals get elected (god help us) we would have Bob Rae as our Finance minister - Yeah Ray days for the whole country\
Quag
Quag
The article I linked to was about the latest announcement regarding Dion's plan. The tax cuts for individuals and low income taxpayers are still part of his overall plan. There is no way an opposition party would be able to formulate a fully detailed plan right off the bat. Harper plans have been evolving since day 1 and they still are. Look at his flip flop on income trusts and todays announcement that they'll bail out our banks even though they just got finished saying everything would be hunky dory and they didn't need to do squat.train said:
BTW, I'm not complaining about them changing direction today. I was complaining earlier because Harper was too doctrinaire and hesitated too long before he abandoned his hands-off approach. So I'm pleased that he swallowed his pride and set aside those non-interventionist theories.
If Dion became PM, I'm sure they'd check the books and make all kinds of adjustments as the plan took shape. Call that inability to fully predict the future a flip flop if you like but I'd rather have someone who is flexible and balanced than someone who clings to his preconceived ideas no matter how harmful they turn out to be.
While we're on the subject of preconceived ideas and plans that will have to evolve, this Reality Check article looks at Harper's green plan. It seems to be complicated and lacking in detail as well. So watch for announcements and adjustments as this one emerges from behind Harper's black curtain.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/realitycheck/2008/10/what_about_the_tory_green_plan.html
What about the Tory green plan?
Posted in Reality Check
Posted on October 8, 2008 10:07 AM
By Mark Gollom
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper rarely passes up an opportunity to characterize Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion’s Green Shift carbon tax plan as a recipe for economic disaster.
Harper has said the plan will "undermine the economy,” "drive up the price of everything” and hurt families in the process, and drive the country into recession.
What’s barely mentioned, if ever, is Harper’s own plan to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions and the potential costs incurred by it. In fact, only two sentences are devoted to the issue in the Conservatives' recently released platform.
So what are the costs?
The Tories' plan, Turning the Corner, which was released last year, incorporates what is known as a cap and trade system. It imposes regulations (caps) on industries in selected sectors, forcing them to reduce their emissions intensity by 18 per cent by 2010 and a further two per cent every year after that.
If the companies are unable to comply, in other words, if their emissions are over the target, one of their options is to pay into a technology fund. The cost of the fund is a $15-per-tonne levy, up to 70 per cent of their excess emissions. That price will rise over time.
As for the other 30 per cent of excess emissions, companies will have to buy domestic offsets or credits from other companies whose emissions were below target (trade). The government has said the price for domestic credits will begin at $25/tonne in 2010 and rise to $65 a tonne by 2018.
A substantial part of the plan also forces oilsands facilites and coal-fired electricity plants that come into operation in 2012 to use carbon capture and storage, a process that would put carbon dioxide from fossil fuels back in the ground.
One thing that’s clear about the plan: there will be costs. The Tories admit as much that their plan will have a “measurable, negative impact on real GDP” and that Canadians can “expect to bear costs under the regulatory framework that are not trivial.”
However, the costs will be “manageable,” they say.
Yet, tax economist Jack Mintz has warned the economic consequences of Turning the Corner could be more dire.
He said it’s difficult to estimate the costs, but taxes, levies, any costs end up getting shifted to consumers to the extent they can.
Fears there will not be enough offsets
“If they can’t, then they end up firing workers or negotiating lower pay packages. That’s the reality.”
Mintz said what companies fear most is that they may not be able to get offsets that are affordable or that there may not be enough available.
“What they’re concerned about is in effect the price could be quite high for these domestic offsets, and they may have to cut back production” in some industries like electricity generation, which could lead to brownouts, he said.
“They’re quite concerned that that may be the only way they can comply with the regulations,” he said.
Mintz, a one-time opponent of the carbon tax who now favours the scheme, said he doesn’t think the Liberal plan will impose heavy economic costs because an increase in prices will be somewhat buffered by cuts to corporate and income taxes.
On Tuesday, more than 230 economists signed an open letter to the leaders of the federal parties urging action on climate change.
While not endorsing any particular political platform, the signatories agreed on 10 principles that include the view that pricing carbon “is the best approach from an economic perspective.” Regulation was seen as the “most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.”
Also, a “cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.”
'Blunt instrument'
“You’re much better with a pricing [policy] than a regulatory one because a regulatory one is a blunt instrument,” said Nancy Olewiler, director of Simon Fraser University’s Public Policy Program, one of three authors of the open letter.
Regulations, such as the ones advocated by the Tories, impose a “one-size fits all approach” and don’t allow for companies to be flexible in coming up with solutions that could better curb emissions, she said.
“You may have a cheaper way of doing it but you have to comply.”
Olewiler said that under a carbon tax, companies know the costs they are facing. But a cap and trade system makes long-term planning difficult because of the uncertainty of the price of carbon.
Also, there will be costs from the bureaucracy of running the cap and trade market, which will include payment to financial intermediaries.
Despite her preference for carbon tax, Olewiler wouldn’t say the Liberals' Green Shift will necessarily be cheaper than the Tories’ plan, since the devil is in the details.
“All of the plans are too complicated. We need to see the details of how all of these plans would come about. The Liberal plan is very complicated, too.”
But the reality is, Olewiler said, no party can make the claim they’ve got the best or cheapest plan.
“But certainly what the Conservatives are proposing does not by definition make it cheaper,” she said.
I like what you said, but want to add to this in specific.Bearlythere said:
Dion
is a quack, who has no real plan to bring Canada out of it's current position, whether environmentally, or economically, without shafting all of us in the first place. First grasping at straws as he saw people shy away from his GREEN SHAFT plan, he tries to tell us he has a NEW plan with his 30 day 5 point plan during the French debate.Dion must have missed biology class in school to not know that walking in the forest or disturbing a shoreline or owning a cow, releases more methane, which is 23 times more harmfull to the environment than any CO2 emissions.
Dion, is confused by a simple question in English, which played out over the CTV and other newscasts last night. Then babbles about a 30/50 "can you repeat that please" I have a plan to have a plan, to have a plan. Something like Tina Fey's comedy skit about Sarah Palin. Where is the Air Farce when you need them.
Ever since he got wind of the chance of winning the LIEBERAL leadership, he has repeatedly, in a desperate tone of voice, said he MUST become the next prime minister of Canada. Demanding respect is not his strong suite, just like his buddy, Mean Jean, who was a dictator. You don't demand respect, but earn it.
I am sorry, but I and a lot of Canadians are sick of this BS about special treatment for the French. If he wants to be prime minister, he needs to know how to listen first and foremost, then be able to speak in English. He has said he didn't hear the question, yet knew what to say, then they(the LIEBERALS) spun it as a hearing problem, that has never been brought up before. If he doesn't understand English, he has no right to be in that job position. Mean Jean had his fumbles, but was easier to understand. Dion doesn't represent Canadians, or for that matter a lot of Liberals.
Eh, i know its understated for effect, but you might fire all the bullets in the chamber, and call it for what it is, a liberal media. Is this a bad thing? Probably not. Left to the conservatives, we would have an American tainted media, through and through. I rest my case.iamme said:
Actually, he has a masters degree. As far as working as an economist, it depends on how you define working as a economist. I doubt that he has ever had a publication in a refereed economics journal (but I could be wrong about even this), so in that sense you may be right. However, some would say that lecturing at the university of Calgary and policy advice roles count.red said:
A big if as I hear his French is getting much better. However, it also would not be as relevant as Canada is primarily an English speaking country, and even if it were not, a good understanding of English is important for foreign affairs.iamme said:
His hearing problem doesn't exist. He can hear perfectly well. He is playing stupid, as he doesn't have any idea what he has got himself into. Babbling about 30/50, when he previously has said a 30 day 5 point plan, which doesn't exist yet, while he calls Harper a liar with no plan. Harper has always had one. Not changing, sorry shifting from the GREEN SHAFT to his new 30/5 plan.iamme said:
I've seen CTV's, CBC's and GLOBAL's broadcasts, and have read the comments online that where posted in other threads than this board, and a LOT of people are saying the same thing as me. He heard, he fumbled with three different answers to a questioned that asked about "today", not 2 &1/2 years ago, not next week, or at a fictitious time when he thinks he will win the Primeministership of Canada. He is a feeble man that shouts, demands, and in my eyes, has no business being a party leader, let alone Primeminister. Gilles was right when he said nobody else at the table would become Primeminister, during the election debate.
You're just the flip side and not really any different.Sheik said:
You are funny. The trouble with you is that you don't really understand economics. How are the new incentives paid for? Everything else being equal with taxes or deficit spending (which means deferred taxes).Sheik said:
The fact of the matter is that in a global recession there is opportunity for a country. Tell me what you like about Harper's plan to get us out of the recession? Simply cutting taxes/spending and otherwise doing nothing is not the answer. You need to view it more like a business. If you run your business from the one dimensional perspective of only cutting costs you are soon left with nothing to build on. You need a more moderate, balanced approach.
Here is the thing about economics:
Like a garden, you can have the best soil the perfect amount of sun creating the best environment to grow but sometimes for no particular reason nothing happens, The government can not create jobs! they can not make the economy better! Our intrest rates are low, our jobless rate is historically low and our banks are renown world wide as the best, our oversight is good. There is nothing any government here could have done to avoid the current mess, we are in decline due to the downward force of the US Economy and there is nothing we can do to insulate ourselves from our biggest economic partner's down-turn.
Now is not the time to try to implement a new green economic system that is unproven. Sometimes it is better to let the storm pass before embarking on a new direction. We need stable proven policies, There will be a time for Green, it is necessary but it should also be a slow ground-swell not a paradigm shift - Sometimes the Turtle beats the Rabbit
Quaggitty
Like a garden, you can have the best soil the perfect amount of sun creating the best environment to grow but sometimes for no particular reason nothing happens, The government can not create jobs! they can not make the economy better! Our intrest rates are low, our jobless rate is historically low and our banks are renown world wide as the best, our oversight is good. There is nothing any government here could have done to avoid the current mess, we are in decline due to the downward force of the US Economy and there is nothing we can do to insulate ourselves from our biggest economic partner's down-turn.
Now is not the time to try to implement a new green economic system that is unproven. Sometimes it is better to let the storm pass before embarking on a new direction. We need stable proven policies, There will be a time for Green, it is necessary but it should also be a slow ground-swell not a paradigm shift - Sometimes the Turtle beats the Rabbit
Quaggitty
