The best thing about a fall election...

[afransen]

Yes, but one party with 40% of the vote share is likely going to win many more seats than two parties with 20% each. This is why vote-splitting was so devastating for the Reform/PC parties in the '90s.

--------

Anyway, it appears that Natural Resources Canada was asked by the government to prepare a report estimating the impact of carbon taxes on the economy at various levels between $50 and $250 per tonne CO2 or equivalent. Apparently, at $50 per tonne, the effect on GDP would be less than -0.1% for the first five years, neutral for another few, then positive from then, onwards.

Harper apparently buried this report (I wonder why?), but the Greens acquired it through Access to Information.

I heard about it at the blog, Impolitic.

Anyway, a link to the report, if you're curious: link

 

[kEiThZ]

I think a much better way of approaching the issue is to attack our dependency on oil. At a conference last year I had the opportunity to hear Gal Luft an energy security analyst ( http://www.iags.org/galluft.htm ). He made the point that its crazy that our entire transportation system is based on one fuel that is concentrated in a few unstable countries. He cited historical precedence for this...salt. Not so long ago, salt was a strategic resource. It was needed to preserve food that in turn allowed sailors to survive long trips. The ice box eventually made salt the table commodity it is today. Oil dependency has to be approached the same way. Not with one solution but a whole host of solutions that tackle all aspects of our transportation needs without using oil. This means encouraging more walking and biking, using more motorcyles/scooters/LSVs, transit and finally more appropriately sized cars (not everyone needs an SUV or pickup truck). In that sense, what might be more effective and more visible: slap on a gas guzzler tax on vehicle registration. 10 cents per litre won't convince someone to switch, but and extra 100-200 dollars at registration certainly would.

 

[afransen]

My hesitation with that idea is that government would almost certainly screw it up. I don't have a lot of faith with complex policies being implemented correctly. The carbon tax is the simplest proposal for reducing oil dependency/GHG emissions, and from my POV, the least likely to be bungled.

The best gas-guzzler tax is a tax on gas. Make it law that the life-cycle cost has to be on the sticker. Hardly a departure from current labelling...

 

[Brandon716]

If it keeps getting advertised that the NDP is close to polling at par with the Liberals, that'll bring a lot of people to vote Dion. I humor Harper's recent speech about how Canada has turned slightly more Conservative, trying to say he will also bring his party to Canadians to moderate the tone.

The fact is that the public still hasn't apparently had time to process 13 years of positive Liberal rule because it ended with sponsorship and some other uneasy topics. There is no turn to the right generally speaking.

There's nothing more beneficial to the Liberals than the media advertising the NDP gaining strength and surging to 20%. People will come back home to keep Harper from winning.

I even think it'll peel some Green support back to the Liberals as some Liberals have obviously eyed the Greens lately.

 

[Brandon716]

...or we could be on for a surprise NDP win a la Ontario 1990 on a federal level.

 

[kEiThZ]

I humor Harper's recent speech about how Canada has turned slightly more Conservative, trying to say he will also bring his party to Canadians to moderate the tone.

I have always found Canadians to be fairly fiscally conservative. What other country expects such strict fiscal discipline from all its major parties? And as to social conservatism, growing up in Toronto I thought Canadians were fairly to the left....until I travelled. I was amazed to find that folks from the Prairies and the Maritimes thought a like on many social issues....abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. This is why I argue that we are approaching an urban/rural divide. As cities like Halifax and Calgary, grow, they become more liberal in mentality. But at present, they are still fairly rural cities which lean more to the right than the big three.

I was in Halifax when the same-sex marriage debates were going on. There certainly was a lot less support for it than Toronto. And many folks there felt the decision was rammed down their throats. Many were upset at their Liberals MPs for voting with the government. Thankfully, we have a tradition of letting sleeping dogs lie in this country so we don't have to broach those topics again. The Conservatives will cater to exactly this crowd, which might accept past decision but certainly won't want any further movement to the left on many social issues. All I can see happening under the Conservatives is that no new social issues legislation will be pushed forward. They'll stick largely to their ideological line ie. they'll stick to topics like dismantling the long gun registry, work on stiffer sentences, etc.


There is some merit to what he said but not in the way he meant it. I would suggest that Harper will succeed because the Liberals gave up the Centre-right where they used to govern. The moment they decided to run on the left with the NDP, the Greens and the BQ, they lost this election. In many places, like BC and Quebec, they were the right wing choice. The moment they stopped being that, only one party on the right was left. The Green Shift was not the right platform to run on. It should have been part of a larger platform. What they should have campaigned on is issues you and afransen raised here.....risking a deficit, irresponsible tax cuts (which Canadians actually view negatively if they affect social services), etc.

That's why they've lost the votes of the centrist voters like me and a few others here on UT. When they find their way back to the centre, they'll have my vote again.

 

[afransen]

I would argue that the Green Shift isn't a 'left' policy. It's something that a lot of fiscal conservatives who understand economics (and aren't ideological!) would support, as it will strengthen our economy with even lower corporate and personal income taxes.

The Conservatives promised to lower CIT rate to 15% by 2012. The Liberals have promised 14%. That will make us one of the lowest taxed jurisdictions in the G7. It will be extremely positive for investment in this country.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would argue that the Green Shift isn't a 'left' policy. It's something that a lot of fiscal conservatives who understand economics (and aren't ideological!) would support, as it will strengthen our economy with even lower corporate and personal income taxes.

The Conservatives promised to lower CIT rate to 15% by 2012. The Liberals have promised 14%. That will make us one of the lowest taxed jurisdictions in the G7. It will be extremely positive for investment in this country.

Carbon taxes may not be a particularly left or right wing policy, but the Green Shift is a leftist platform. Note that most of the associated income tax cuts go to lower income filers and families. Not that I am against that, but that particularly aspect and the credits for rural and northern residents makes it a leftist platform.

And, sadly, environmental issues in Canada are largely the domain of the left. With the exception of Mulroney's efforts on acid rain, few right politicians go out of their way to expend political capital tackling environmental issues. And I would argue this is because of platforms exactly like the Green Shift, where a environmental economics policy is often combined with a leftist idea like income redistribution. That's why these policies are a hard sell. The environment has become an excuse for other socialist policies and has become associated with mostly leftist political parties, NGOs, campaigners, etc. If it were an independent issue, it would be much easier for the right.