Canada's next Prime Minister?

[Brandon716]

No offense Walt, but I said that tongue in cheek, even if I don't support Harper and meant what I said.

Its obvious few people on here have a good sense of humor or can't understand an emoticon.

 

[kEiThZ]

There is the national unity dimension that hasn't come up. The Liberals use to be the party of unity but now it seems that they have become an urban/suburban rump party largely based on seats east on the Ontario-Manitoba border.

The Conservatives are drawing in disaffected Liberals across the land and combining western reformers, 905ers, Quebec nationalists, etc. We'll see if they can hold that grand coalition together for long...but for now they seem to have a much wider base than the Liberals.

The Liberals seem to have squandered their opportunity to reform while on the opposition benches. And it's only to get worse for them as the west's population and economic power grows. Their 'screw the west, we'll take the rest' plan is quickly becoming the millstone around their neck. If they want to win, they have to start crafting pan-Canadian policy....and something more than 'Harper is scary, don't pick him.'

 

[lordmandeep]

true Kieth...

Even Trudeau won 4 seats in Alberta back in 1968...

 

[Whoaccio]

And all but one seat in Quebec, which is just plain impressive. The Libs need another 1984 election (where the Liberals lost 107 seats and every province went PC) to sort of cleanse the Liberal party of any inhibitions it might have. They clearly became complacent during the Chretien years, and were almost totally reliant on a few corporate donors for their funding. The Tories meanwhile are actually very good at "grassroots" organization and fund raising.

Things could be worse...

 

[lordmandeep]

Things could be worse...

Oh yeah the PC's faced the worst defeat in history.


This has to be the funniest and most spectacular and most amazing election in Canadian History...


The Canadian Federal Election of 1993

Liberals liked the days when they won 100 seats in Ontario and grab 15 in Quebec and 30 in Maratimes and 10 more across the country and win.

 

[Ryuinfinity]

Gotta love those 2 seats in Nunavut.

 

[Admiral Beez]

just remember ... the reason why Dion is proposing to lower the income tax is so that you can afford to pay for the costs associated with the proposed 'carbon tax' ... and its 'supposed' to zero out in costs to the average Canadian

Then what's the point? If my increased cost of polluting is covered by a decreased cost in taxes, then I might as well keep on polluting. In fact, if my income is derived from my polluting, for example, if driving to clients makes me money, I should pollute more, since I know that I can cover the pollution with more income.

 

[kEiThZ]

Gotta love those 2 seats in Nunavut.

Bellwether ridings of the north!?!?

 

[urbanfan89]

Anyone here a member of the Harperjugend?

I hear their rallies are quite inspirational.

 

[afransen]

Then what's the point? If my increased cost of polluting is covered by a decreased cost in taxes, then I might as well keep on polluting. In fact, if my income is derived from my polluting, for example, if driving to clients makes me money, I should pollute more, since I know that I can cover the pollution with more income.

Let's stop playing with anecdotes. It is not really a matter of debate among people who genuinely have a greater understanding of the economy (economists) that all else equal, a tax on carbon emissions tends to lower those emissions vs. what they would be otherwise.

The thing is, you can continue to choose to pollute, or you can choose to invest in suddenly low-hanging fruit in terms of energy savings.

Take a taxi driver. Let's say the green shift would increase gasoline tax (it won't). The increased price of fuel would be an incentive to use a fleet that was more fuel efficient per unit of production. The burning of gasoline isn't the service or the good. The transportation is--do the transporting while wasting less resources, not exactly rocket science.

 

[kEiThZ]

Take a taxi driver. Let's say the green shift would increase gasoline tax (it won't). The increased price of fuel would be an incentive to use a fleet that was more fuel efficient per unit of production. The burning of gasoline isn't the service or the good. The transportation is--do the transporting while wasting less resources, not exactly rocket science.

Yet in your example....because there is no increase in gas taxes, there will no incentive to change to different fuel or more efficient vehicle.

What's more the Green Shift would increase the price of the alternatives to gasoline thereby eroding the very advantage those fuels have....such as diesel. Furthermore, there are some places where alternatives are very difficult. Show me how much tractor-trailers can really be improved or how a combine can be made significantly more efficient without actually replacing them with new vehicles. It's quite obvious that anything but gasoline was targeted because of the political implications of raising fuel taxes for the average folks. But for all those businesses who consume aviation fuels, diesel, heating oil, etc. it's going to be tough.

This plan on the eve of a recession in Ontario would be quite a challenge to pull off. Earlier this decade or during the last one, it would have been a great idea....too bad the ruling party of that era squandered the chance.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Premier of Ontario has raised a good point. I will be watching the debates to see which platform is the best for Ontario. So far none of the parties really wants to speak the truth and say that its time for the feds to help Ontario recover because of the dutch disease we caught when the rest of the provinces were pumping oil (or hydro).

Here's his challenge to the parties. I am certainly waiting for the responses:

http://www.fairness.ca/

 

[kEiThZ]

Here's the Liberal platform:

http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e.aspx

Here's the preliminary analysis:

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/09/22/costing-the-liberal-platform/

They need to cut 12 billion over 4 years to make it happen for them. Now we have to wait for them to tell us what they wanna cut.

 

[afransen]

Yet in your example....because there is no increase in gas taxes, there will no incentive to change to different fuel or more efficient vehicle.

You're ignoring my premise, that there would be an increase in gasoline taxes. Call it high-efficiency gas-furnace vs. clunker from the '70s.

What's more the Green Shift would increase the price of the alternatives to gasoline thereby eroding the very advantage those fuels have....such as diesel.

Diesel isn't our saviour. Let's not pretend it is. Debating which particular extract of petroleum is marginally more (cost?) efficient vs. just using less is a little like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Furthermore, there are some places where alternatives are very difficult. Show me how much tractor-trailers can really be improved or how a combine can be made significantly more efficient without actually replacing them with new vehicles.

Walmart has invested in some low-hanging fruit that they expect to pay off in a couple of years and will reduce their fleet's fuel consumption by 15%. Besides making their trailers more aerodynamic, they are in the process of installing independent generators for their long-haul trucks that can be used to provide power to the cab while the driver is sleeping, rather than idling for 8-12 hours which is common practice. This is something that can be done with the existing capital stock. I work for a firm that operates a very large freight division within the Canadian market, and this company is certainly investing in high ROI retrofits to reduce fuel consumption. It has also driven efforts to reduce waste through idling time. These business process changes require no modification to the capital stock, yet can achieve siginificant increases in efficiency per unit of production.

It's quite obvious that anything but gasoline was targeted because of the political implications of raising fuel taxes for the average folks. But for all those businesses who consume aviation fuels, diesel, heating oil, etc. it's going to be tough.

There is a pretty good rational reason not to levy additional taxes on gasoline. If anything, gasoline is having the playing field leveled vs. other petroleum products. I don't understand how this is disingenuous or hypocritical.

I'll note that today the price of oil increased by about the same as the fully-phased in carbon tax of $40 a tonne CO2e. Again... not an earth-shattering change. It will require some change, yes, but it is certainly manageable. If a one day swing won't crash the Canadian economy, a 4 year rise with plenty of notice won't either.

This plan on the eve of a recession in Ontario would be quite a challenge to pull off. Earlier this decade or during the last one, it would have been a great idea....too bad the ruling party of that era squandered the chance.

It's really quite silly. This slow-down will be over by the time this tax is even beginning to make much impact (diesel prices wouldn't rise until the second year).

 

[afransen]

Here's the Liberal platform:

http://www.liberal.ca/platform_e.aspx

Here's the preliminary analysis:

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2008/09/22/costing-the-liberal-platform/

They need to cut 12 billion over 4 years to make it happen for them. Now we have to wait for them to tell us what they wanna cut.

I don't know if $3 billion per year is so much. Harper dropped $4 billion in infrastructure for Quebec right before the election; just roll that spending into the Liberal infrastructure plan and you're down to $8 billion right there. End $1.2 billion in preferential tax treatment for the oil sands (the oilsands needs preferential tax treatment?). $5.8 billion...

There's half?