Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
So from that poll it looks like the Conservatives would form a government even with 62% of Canadians voting against them, which is an increase of 4 points from 58% on Friday.
The Real Big Election... Canada!
- Thread starter Jimbo07
- Start date
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
You know, I find that a little... disturbing.
The Bloc's primary goal is the break-up of Canada and the separation of Quebec. Regardless of how you feel about the polcies of the other parties (or the chance that any particular party will win), do you REALLY think so little of Canada that you think it should be broken up rathar than have the Liberals or Conservatives in power?
Remember, we're not talking about just some minor policy differences. We're talking about the end of federation as we know it.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
It's what Our Good Buddy Stevelikes to call a mandate!
Ummm... for more than half a century (possibly even since the beginnig of confederation) almost every party that has gained power in Canada has done so with fewer than 50% of the popular vote (with perhaps one or 2 minor exceptions). Having around 60% of the people voting against the party is actually normal.
So why would you criticize the conservatives for assuming a mandate with a popular vote similar to those obtained by Chretien, Trudeau, etc.?
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
The Conservative mandate is not similar to those of Chretien and Trudeau. Harper's party occupies the entire right of the Canadian political spectrum. The four other mainstream parties are all centrist or left of centre. This means that around 60% of Canadian voters are left of centre. A right-wing govt, especially one as reformist and reactionary as Harper's, with a parliamentary majority from 38% of the popular vote is far, far less representative of the Canadian political will, generally speaking, than is a Liberal parliamentary majority with a similar vote percentage.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
In part, because it was a joke... in another part, because he was treating the last parliament as if he had a majority mandate, because the Liberals wouldn't stand up to him.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Pardalis can answer for his own self, but this has always been my general understanding:
The Bloc is the only party that has Quebec's interests at heart. As a result, they benefit from strategic voting from soft federalists and soft separatists. Other parties court Quebec voters only to the extent that they need some seats from Quebec in order to form the govt - those parties aren't really interested in addressing any of Quebec's concerns.
Voting strategically for the Bloc is more logical than ever these days, given just how far separatism has fallen off of the political radar lately.
All in all, it's just another indication that we badly need electoral reform - some form of proportional representation.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Anyway, to begin the fun, I will NOT be voting for the party of Our Good Buddy Steve
I on the other hand will likely be voting conservative for a variety of reasons:
- Philosophically, I have libertarian leanings. While I may not go as far as your typical "hard core" libertarian, I do believe in smaller government, both economically and socially. This means that I'm opposed to the increased spending that would likely come from an NDP government (Bob Rae anyone?)
- While the Liberals are less, ahem, distasteful than the NDP economically, remember that they've only been out of power for 2 years, and this IS the party that brought us ad-scam. They should be out of power for at least another few years as punishment
- The Conservatives have been criticized for the 'social conservatives' that are within their ranks. However, while I do disagree with the stances of your average 'social conservative' (I am pro-choice and anti-censorship for example), I feel that the religious right does not have enough influence to force votes that are, ahem, particularly distasteful.
- And lest you think the conservatives are some sort of bastion of 'woo', and that all other parties are logical and 'skeptical', keep in mind that the NDP was a party that voted against C-51.
- The Liberal 'green shift' plan is, in my opinion, a total crock. Basically, the plan ends up transferring a while bunch of money from people in Ontario and Alberta to places like Quebec and Manitoba. Why? Because, people in Ontario and Alberta use fossil fuel to generate their power. Quebec and Manitoba use a lot more Hydro. As a result, people in Ontario and Alberta get punished not for how wasteful they are, but simply for where they live.
I have not been totally happy with the conservatatives as of late... For example, while some of their recent spending promises were probably necesssary (for example, rebuilding the military), I feel there were cuts that they should have made but haven't. (That COULD simply be due to the fact that they're in a minorty and have to appease the other parties.) However, those cuts likely wouldn't have been done had the Liberals been in power either.
Jimbo07
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2006
- Messages
- 4,518
This is something with which I philosophically disagree, and I won't debate you here, because it's been the subject of other threads... but I agree in the sense that I'm concerned that part of the ideology of the current Conservative party is libertarian...
I believe you are correct... at least... I hope you're not wrong...
Oh, don't get me started on hippies and woo...
I agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you...
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Ummm... I'm always confused when people talk about "Quebec's concerns".
I rather suspect that the average quebecor has the same concerrns as any other Canadian... they want a good economy, low crime, etc. While it is true that they tend to have views that are politically more 'left wing' than the average Canadian, their opinions aren't RADICALLY different than the rest of Canadians.
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=4020
Yeah, I've head that argument used before... but given the nature of politics, it likely wouldn't take much for support for separation to increase... a charasmiatic spearatist leader, and some issue that they can fake outrage over is all it would take.
ETA: Remember, separation had been viewed by many as a 'dead issue' throughout much of the 80s before we almost had the country break up in the 90s.
There's likely a lot more danger of a 'yes' vote for separation in some future referendum than there is in an extremist religious conservative government voting in anti-abortion legislation, etc.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Ummm... keep in mind that the carbon tax is supposed to be revenue neutral for the government; it will not necessarily be revenue neutral for individuals.
What is going to happen with the federal carbon tax... people in provinces like Alberta and Ontario (who generate much of their electicity through oil or coal) will end up paying more. People in places like Quebec or Manitoba will end up paying less.
Unfortunately, the amount you save or have to pay will, in large part, be outside your control. I (as a resident of Ontario, and as someone who lives in the city) have no real options to reduce my 'carbon footprint'. I already have an efficient furnace, drive a small car, have the best possible insulation, etc. What would make a difference is if I could have my power generated by nuclear, but I don't really have any control over that, unless the city wants to rezone my property so I can install a nuclear generator in the back yard. (I worked out the numbers and I'll likely be paying over $150 more per year under the green shift plan.)
So, someone in Ontario could be as power-efficent as they could and pay more, while someone in Quebec could even WASTE more energy, and still end up getting money back thanks to the green shift.
The latter, not the former. Canada will survive, if we do this gradually and democratically. No need to worry, we don't want to hurt Canada any more than you do.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
This year I genuinely would like to vote NDP because I mostly agree with their views (except Afghanistan, but I already disagree about that with the Bloc). But as long as the PQ is not in power in Québec, the Bloc is pretty much useless in Ottawa. I'd like to give the NDP a chance but they have no chance of winning in my county, so in order to counter the Liberals, which I hate, I have no option but to vote for the Bloc, which is still strong here.
As I said, it will be done gradually, just like the Westminster Act, which took 60 years in the making, why should it be different for the gradual autonomy of the Québec State? (well maybe not 60 years, I think we can do it a little faster)
Nobody wants to break anything. Quebec's sovereingty movement is a progressive endeavour, not a destructive one.
Last edited:
I absolutely agree.
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2007
- Messages
- 14,519
To which I must ask: given the nice little run of scandals the Conservatives have had while in office (admittedly none as large as Adscam but scandals nonetheless), when should the Conservatives be punished for them?
FreshHat
Why, You Little...
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,246
Charismatic leader... Sorry I had to laugh.
Actually, his speech is OK, although he does speak with a bit of a snobbish accent.. But most see him as a rat.
Dion's entire presentation is all wrong.
He is colourless. He's white on grey on beige.
His English isn't great, but what really gets up my nose is that whinnying little pony tone in his voice.
Chretien's fractured English was rather endearing, mostly because that gravelly voice made everything he said sound like he was telling a dirty joke.
Dion always sounds like he's whimpering.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Individuals will be receiving income tax cuts. The carbon tax will not be applied to individuals, it will be applied to industries that generate carbon.
People everywhere will be paying less because their personal income taxed will be reduced. Are you arguing for some sort of trickle down effect from the carbon tax's effects on carbon-intensive industries?
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the plan. I think you should read it:
http://thegreenshift.ca/pdfs/green_shift_book_en.pdf
Way to communicate to the electorate Dion! I wonder how many other Canadians think the tax will be applied directly to them?
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Quebec, broadly speaking, is not comfortable with the current constitutional state of affairs. The province had the Constitution Act, 1982 imposed on it without its consent, and has always advocated for greater autonomy in the federal/provincial division of powers. Also, the province has a separate legal system from the ROC and has different religious, linguistic and other cultural traditions.
I would have thought that these things go without saying. I am curious as to the source of your confusion.
No doubt we all share those concerns.
After the Secession reference and the Clarity Act, unilateral secession is off the table. Unless, of course, Quebec decides to stage a revolution, and I don't think Quebeckers want that any more than we want to send in the tanks. Whatever happens, it will happen democratically.
Anti-abortion legislation would have a tough time standing up to Charter review post-Morgentaler. The Conservatives are quite capable of doing other equally draconian things, however. Bill C-61 is a perfect example.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
I'm getting this from reading the green plan, and actually, you know, actually looking at the numbers. Actual analysis. Yeah, I know, wild concept.
The carbon tax applies to almost all uses of 'carbon'. This includes natural gas/oil used for heating (the liberal plan actually gives the amount of carbon tax that a family will expect to pay on their heating bill), coal/oil/gas used for electrical generation (which gets passed on to consumers, either directly through increased residental rates) and any fossil fuels used in industry.
No, I've already stated exactly what I'm arguing... that people in provinces that generate electricity will be hit with a higher carbon tax than people that live in provinces that rely only on hydroelectricity. Not sure why its so difficult to comprehend.
Here's an example: I am a single guy living in Ontario. I live in a small home heated by gas. Yes, according to the green shift plan, I will get an income tax cut that saves me approximately $300/year in income tax (given an income around 40-50k/year). Yet according to that same green plan, I'll end up spending $228-266 for my natural gas. In addition, the carbon tax applied to the use of coal/oil power plants will add approximately $1.1 billion to the cost of my electricity (I've provided a reference to that below). Divided by the number of households in Ontario (~4.5 million)and that comes out to an additional $200 that I have to pay. (And yes, I realize that some of that electricity is being used by businesses rather than households, but as I said before, the cost ULTIMATELY will get passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices.)
So, my $300 in income tax gets offset by around $450 in carbon taxes for heat and electricity. End result: I pay $150 more than I would without the green shift.
Now, lets say that I lived in Quebec or Manitoba, with the same income/heating patterns/etc. I would get the income tax cut of $300, I'd have to pay more for natural gas, but since virtually all power in Quebec/Manitoba is generated via hydroelectric (which is not affected by the carbon tax) I won't be paying more for electricity. End result: The Quebec/Manitoba version of myself ends up benefiting by $50. And what effort does that Quebec resident have to do to get that $50? Not one bit. Heck, they can even take that $50 that they get from the green shift and use it to buy gas to keep their car idling in the driveway for hours on end if they want.
The end result: I get 'punished' (for lack of a better word) simply because of where I live... because my province doesn't have the benefit of overwhelming hydroelectric capacity and as a result have to rely on fossil fuel for electricity.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2008/06/25/5985871-cp.html
Actually, that's extremely arrogant of you. I have indeed read through the entire plan, and from the looks of it I seem to understand it (and the ramifications of the plan) a bit better than you.
Heck, even most supporters of the plan realize that not everyone is going to be "revenue neutral" for individuals. For example: From: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080619/dion_green_plan_080619?s_name=&no_ads=
Some analysts say the Liberal plan introduced Thursday may be revenue neutral on a large scale, but not everyone will see new taxes offset by tax cuts.
"It's never going to be revenue-neutral for any individual or any corporation,'' Don Drummond, the chief economist for TD Bank, told The Canadian Press.
"Everybody's going to be able to do their own calculations to some degree, and there will be winners and there will be losers."
Why exactly do you think its necessary for a tax to be applied directly to me for me to be adversly affected? If a tax is applied to a wholesaler, manufacturer, or retailer, the cost of those taxes will end up being felt by the consumer.
Even the Liberal green shift plan admits to this. In fact, go to page 30 of the green shift plan... you'll see various estimates for how much the carbon tax is going to cost the end consumer for gas/oil.
Last edited:
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Settle down Francis. I wasn't attacking you personally.
So, you are making a trickle down argument. Fine. You could have just answered "yes" when I asked for clarification about that. I'm not sure I agree with the underlying assumptions, but it's at least a defensible positition.
All of this is based on assumptions that I don't necessarily agree with - namely that all costs to industry will simply be passed down to the consumer. I would be inclined to be more concerned about recession in boom/bust economies like Alberta's. I'm old enough to remember the effects of the NEP. It's the chilling effect that the plan may or may not have on economic activity that is the real concern, not consumer prices.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Well, keep in mind that it was you that was accusing me of not reading or understanding the green plan. I wanted to emphasize that not only have I read the plan, I've done a bit more indepth analysis than just reading the Liberal talking points.
I wouldn't necessarily consider this a 'trickle down' argument... I've been concentrating on just 2 main carbon producers... heating fuel (for which there is a fairly direct link between the producer and consumer) and electrical generation (which are typically provincial utilities and thus have a fairly, ahem, intimate relationship between supplier and consumer).
I could have attempted to also include carbon emissions by other areas of the economy, but that would have been very complex, and pretty pointless (since all areas of the country have carbon-emitting manufacturing/farming/resource based activities. I was concentrating on the items where the cause and effect were most obvious.
Well, first of all, I didn't go into detail about all costs to the industry. I concentrated on heating fuel (which the Liberals themselves predicted would see an increase due to the carbon tax), and electricity. Provicinial power companies don't (or at least shouldn't) be operating at a profit, so either they will have to pass any cost increases onto the consumers (many of them residential or government), or operate at a deficit (which eventually requires us to pay through provincial taxes.)
Secondly... even if I was talking about corporate emission of carbon and not residental, why exactly do you think that the carbon taxes won't be passed on to the user in some way? If you increase costs (e.g. increased fuel costs due to carbon tax) there isn't that much that can happen. Either:
- Costs are passed on to the consumer
- Profits are cut (which means that anyone who has a pension plan or RRSPs will see their investment returns diminish)
- The company decides to shift production to some part of the world where production is cheaper.
Yeah, companies will get a corporate tax cut to partly offset the costs of the carbon tax, but its the same situation I described earlier... companies in provinces with high usage of hydro will come out better off than companies in provinces where fossil fuel is used.