A Carbon Tax Backlash?
The political bet driving NDP's 'Axe the Gas Tax.'
Sign of the times.
Environmentalists and economists say the carbon tax is good policy. But it's also starting to look like tricky politics.
A recent Ipsos Reid poll signals just how hard North America's first comprehensive carbon tax is going to be to sell.
The Opposition New Democratic Party has to be happy that almost 60 per cent of those surveyed don't like the tax, which comes into effect July 1.
On the other hand, the Liberal government has to be happy that their anger at the tax hasn't caused a shift to the NDP -- the Liberals still lead by 14 points.
On yet another hand (or possibly just switching back to the first hand), the NDP's Axe the Gas Tax campaign is just getting started.
The tricky part for the NDP is going to be making a case that they're credible anti-tax crusaders. That'll mean getting people to forget the "tax and spend" label that the mainstream media have pasted on the party.
For an opposition party, the gas tax makes a juicy target. The positive things associated with it -- reducing greenhouse gases to fight climate change, getting an income tax break -- are either abstract or distant.
The negative element -- paying more for gas -- is right in your face.
New taxes are always going to be unpopular, but raising the price of gas when the price at the pump is blasting its way towards $1.50 a litre shows either political courage or political cluelessness.
And there's just so many ways to attack it. It hasn't helped the government that they have done little to sell it, while using closure to ram it through the legislature.
Centerpiece of election strategy
The NDP is making the tax the centrepiece of a campaign strategy based on class and regional grievances. They are, they say, on the side of ordinary British Columbians against an unfair tax that lets "big polluters" off the hook.
You, the little guy, will get screwed while the fat cats rape the planet.
The theory behind the carbon tax is simple enough -- tax the sources of greenhouse gases so that it gradually costs more and more to pollute. People and companies will find ways to pollute less. They'll conserve fuel -- drive less, turn down the thermostat -- and adopt non-polluting technologies -- take the bus, say, or buy a hybrid car.
The elegant part of the theory is that the tax is revenue neutral -- you give back the money you collect by cutting income tax. That way nobody gets hurt.
The term "revenue neutral," however, has been a sticking point.
Northerners are convinced they are going to pay more, although the available data aren't conclusive.
From their point of view, the tax is unfair. And fairness is going to be a key point that the NDP will hammer in its campaign to axe the tax.
The NDP has also effectively exploited the confusion around exemptions to the tax. The NDP's Framework for Real Climate Action, released on June 13, says the carbon tax "lets big polluters off the hook by exempting 30 to 40 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C."
Someone who wasn't paying attention might get the impression that big corporations don't have to pay the carbon tax. They do, just like everybody else, when they burn fossil fuels.
Meet the 'big polluters'
The carbon tax covers emissions from almost all fossil fuels -- 70 per cent of B.C.'s total emissions, according to the government. Not covered are greenhouse gases from other sources. That includes gases that escape during coal mining and the production of oil and gas, as well as gases that are created during the production of things like cement and aluminum.
The government says these emissions are tricky to measure and tax. They may be taxed in the future or they could end up being regulated under a cap-and-trade scheme that is still being developed.
In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, "fugitive" emissions from the coal, oil and gas industries amounted to 9 per cent of B.C.'s total greenhouse gases.
"Industrial processes," including cement and aluminum, made up five per cent of the total.
Non-fuel emissions from agriculture are also exempt. That's about 4 per cent per cent of total B.C. emissions.
Also exempt from the carbon tax: landfills, where ordinary British Columbians send their garbage (seven per cent of total emissions).
Passenger cars and trucks -- which are subject to the carbon tax -- make up about 14 per cent of total emissions.
We have met the big polluters and they are us.
Beating up 'Big Oil'
In addition to the fairness question, there's that disconnect between the payout and the payback. You may or may not notice the income tax cuts on your paycheque. You may or may not associate them with the carbon tax.
But you're sure as heck going to notice when the price of gas passes $1.50 a litre.
The NDP's given some extra oomph to this idea by associating the tax with Big Oil.
"As gas prices continue to climb, oil companies continue to rake in record profit while ordinary consumers take the hit in their pocketbooks," NDP leader Carole James said in a recent news release.
Another tricky rhetorical flourish has been to consistently refer to the carbon tax as a "gas tax."
It is, of course, much more than a gas tax -- it also applies to natural gas, propane, jet fuel, coal, peat and even shredded tires if you burn them as fuel.
But gas is where people are going to notice it. And it sounds so punitive. And, when it comes to making a label stick, it doesn't hurt that "gas tax" fits better in a headline than "carbon tax."
Besides, "gas tax" has a nice crackly sound, whereas "carbon tax" sounds kind of tired.
The Liberals will call it the carbon tax. The NDP will call it the gas tax. If enough voters call it that @#*&% gas tax, it could help swing the next election.
Related Tyee stories:
- Green Your Campbell Cash
Check out the web site that let's you put your $100 rebate to use for BC and the planet. - NDP Takes Heat on Global Warming
Stance against carbon tax steams BC enviros. - BC's Carbon Tax Shell Game
Economist who invented 'eco-footprint' analysis is not impressed.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
- Appeal court upholds ruling on protection of orca habitat
- Foreign takeover score is 14,218 to two calculates Mel Hurtig, who speaks Saturday
- Abbott blames teachers' union, hints at legislation
- Greens exaggerating fracking fears 'to control you': Santorum
- Prime Minister Harper mixes oil with human rights on visit to China
- Civil jury finds former BC premier Vander Zalm guilty of defamation
- Vancouver theatre runs down curtain on section of BC's outdated liquor laws
- BC Premier Clark to replace throne speech with radio appearance
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- 'The Kids Are All Right'
- 'Leave Your Shoes On'
- Glaciers, BC Hydro's Melting 'Batteries'
- Frankie Rose Makes Life Tougher for Journalists
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- Could SOPA Pervade Canadian Copyright Law?
- Would You Buy a Used Car from These Libs?
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Who Pays Huge Power Bills for Clark's Gas Plants?
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Economist Calls Gateway Pipeline an Inflationary 'Threat'
- Bill Rees' Last Lecture
- Eleven Oily Questions for Every MP
- Is Canada Ignoring Signs of a Coming Economic Collapse?
- Too Much Energy Used to Mine, Move Bitumen Says BC Firm
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Harper in China
- Bruce Carson Scandal Greased by Harper's Oil Sands Agenda
- BC Child Care Advocates in Geneva to Complain to UN
- How First Nations Are Gearing Up for Legal Battle Against Gateway
- Make It the Canadian Webcasting Corporation
- Harper in China
- Shadow Workers of the World, Revolt!
- Expert on Healthy Democracy Takes BC's Pulse
- Remembering Lloyd Dykk's Wit, Generosity and Superb Prose
- When the Prize Is a Chance to Toil on BC's Farms
- Three Ryan Gosling Pickup Techniques that Don't Work in Real Life
- BC, You Love You
- Tweet Us What You Read Today
- Scientists unveil bold new definition of addiction
- The most hellish ‘internships’: China sends 100,000 teens to work for a pittance at Foxconn making gadgets for Apple, others
- World Press Photo Contest: Editor’s choice pictures of the day
- Banks come first in a Greek rescue plan
- We’re more unequal than you think
- Cambodia launched restaurants for vultures
- Flavored vodka: sign of the imminent apocalypse?
- With Obama’s new foreclosure deal big banks win again
95
Login or register to post comments
G West
3 years ago
Let's call it
Let's call it the Campbell Tax - credit where credit's due.
fanshaw
3 years ago
Furthermore...
The NDP might also wish to point out that the tax is:
A) Unnecessary: The steep rise in gas prices will do far more to reduce consumption than this piddling tax will.
B) Revenue negative: As consumption goes down so does revenue from the tax, leaving a deficit.
Van Isle
3 years ago
How come Gordo's green tax
How come Gordo's green tax is going directly into general revenue? And where does that money go after that? In my way of thinking, any green tax should be going directly into programs, completly bypassing general revenue, that will get us off our dependency of oil and use other sources of energy. The only thing green in Gordo's new tax scheme is the colour of the money. It speaks volumes when you don't hear any protest from the big-boys when any government brings on or increases taxes.
MJP
3 years ago
good politics?
NDP is on course for short term gain, long term pain on this one.
The only pathway to power for the NDP is either a split on the right or an alliance with the Greens. History is a harsh teacher on this front. Issues come and go, but splits determine elections.
Axe the Tax, no matter how much you try to stress your enviro creds, is going to paint you brown and foreclose any Green alliance.
If STV goes through, maybe there's a lifeline there should the right split, but otherwise this is a recipe for at least 8 more years on the opposition bench.
Skywalker
3 years ago
When the price of gas is thrrough the roof.
The rich will drive and the poor will walk or cycle. At the same time the four oil companies will make more money selling half as much fuel to a consumer not smart enough to know he/she is being ripped off. The notion that the solution to the problem is to whack the person at the consuming end and let off the four oil companies is as insane as the notion that Campbell is green. This is all politics.
If you wanted to do something worthwhile to find alternative energy supplies or invent ways to use less then go after oil company profits. They are the ones making a killing on the effects on climate. What do you expect the little guy to do but drive less and pay more. Some solution!
Frank
3 years ago
MJP
The Greens left long ago. How else do you explain the fact they have their own capitalism+environmentalism party?
The right-wing like the carbon tax because it means they don't have to reduce emissions or make big changes to the way we do things.
In the long run it'll be the Greens that will have to defend how they were bought off by a $100 cheque.
As for me, I still don't understand how increasing the consumption taxes on ourselves will help us be competitive with those that produce goods and pollution from our resources.
Economically and environmentally wouldn't it make more sense to increase the taxes on the export of our raw materials (and reduce our own taxes so as to be "revenue neutral") so that there would be more of an incentive to produce goods locally? And would that not put more heat on those that buy our energy to reduce their own consumption?
The Campbell tax is bass-ackwards.
de Falla
3 years ago
Three Reasons to Axe the Tax
1.Since Campbell first mused about a carbon tax as a feature of a climate action plan 18 months ago, the price of gas at the pump has increased the equivalent to a charge of $200/tonne CO2, a greater price than the tax many climate change economists at the time had suggested would be effective at compelling the desired behaviour while avoiding pushing families over the edge or harming the economy. Since the 08 budget alone, price has increased over $85/tonne.
2.Campbell’s tax is also regressive. Marc Lee [Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives] and Toby Sanger [CUPE] presented a paper to the Canadian Economists Association in June that demonstrated that by 2010 lower income British Columbians would be at a net loss as the fixed carbon tax credit is linked to inflation, while the tax itself escalates at a much faster rate from $10/tonne to $20/tonne to $30/tonne over 4 years.
3.And yes, process emissions for oil and other industries are untouched.
To give “Campbell bucks” to those who support this tax is something only a high income holder of oil shares should consider.
dgrant
3 years ago
Skywalker, if you go after
Skywalker, if you go after oil companies instead of the end consumer, won't that also affect gas prices? How is it different? I'm not saying it's a bad idea though. I just want to fully understand the difference between the taxing gas company profits and taxing the consumer who buys gas. It seems like me like both would cause gas to become more expensive, thus causing people to buy less gas and emit less carbon.
Dermot
3 years ago
Losing the upperhand
Sure gas is at an all time high, but as it starts to fall in price, the carbon tax remains constant, unlike gas taxes which are usually based on a per centage of the price at the pump. This makes the decision to own a gas guzzler a little less economic.
And the quarterly carbon tax rebates to folks who qualify for a GST rebate will see wealth transfer from gas guzzlers to people who can't even afford to own a car.
Sounds like some kind of green socialism.
The problem with the NDP strategy of diluting the complexity of the carbon tax down to a clever soundbite, is that they lose any credibility they might have on this issue. For a lot of folks this may not matter, but to core supporters who built the NDP on a platform of sound, reasonable policy, it sounds like it's back to the days of bashing environmentalists.
Once again it'll be greedy city enviro's stealing jobs from "hard working rural BC-ers". And that really worked for the NDP last time, didn't it?
Fiat lux
3 years ago
For crying out loud, ONCE
For crying out loud, ONCE AGAIN: Of course, the big companies will also have to pay the tax, but for every penny they pay, they'll charge the public 5 or 10, and make it a big profit cash cow.
Milk went up .30 cents in our supermarket and nobody can tell me that it cost .30 cents extra to produce and deliver a 4 litre jug of milk.
In short, this whole thing is just another racket.
Also, a lot of low income people, like us OAPs, pay no income tax, because we don't have enough incomes, but will still have to pay the inflated gas and other prices.
These are the obvious points the NDP should shout about to the public.
I may have the chance to talk to Ms.James later this week and will definitely bring all this up, if do. They're missing out on a whole slew of obvious gimmicks.
Ed Deak.
de Falla
3 years ago
Is it a spike?
To insist upon adding a tax when prices are already high enough to cause families to actively seek strategies to reduce their fossil fuel consumption seems a bit over reaching. Even Jeffrey Simpson admits the price signal is strong.
The "spike" argument is premised on the expectation that India and China et al won't continue to demand a greater share of energy - in a peak oil reality. It assumes peace befalls the globe. It assumes Bush is successful in implementing drilling for oil off-shore etc. etc. There are several compelling arguments that suggest oil will never be as cheap as it was 18 months ago.
To clear this all up, it would be good to know what the BAU price was that Jaccard et al used to model their tax proposal for the Premier. Then we'd all know when a tax is appropriate.
For we lesser mortals not privy to this inside information it might be better to simply celebrate the fact that consumers are now very eager to learn how to reduce their consumption. Let's devote our efforts to helping them do so rather than lamenting that they got there by a means other than the tax.
Skywalker
3 years ago
dgrant
Don't you think it is about time that oil prices were regulated. It is an essential commodity, we are supposedly trying to do something, about climate change, most of the resource is owned by the people, and price gouging and profiteering should be punishable. Reasonable profits yes but everything beyond that..tax the hell out of them.
mopled
3 years ago
George Carlin on Global Warming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0&feature=related
Posted both as a tribute to him and a brilliant comment on the follies of run-a-way environmentalism.
The basis question nobody goes near is why the bleep are we allowing them to tax us on a lunatic scam and clear fraud?
"Measurements by four major temperature tracking outlets reported that world temperatures dropped by about 0.65° C to 0.75° C during 2007, the fastest temperature changes ever recorded (either up or down). The cooling approached the total of all warming that occurred over the past 100 years, which is commonly estimated at about 1° C. Antarctic sea ice expanded by about 1 million square kilometers – more than the 28-year average since altimeter satellite monitoring began.
Cyclical, abrupt, and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred in observable patterns over millions of years, long before humans invented agriculture, capitalism, smokestacks, and carbon trading schemes. To appreciate just how lucky we are to live in the present, consider climate cycles from a historical perspective. Over the past 400,000 years, much of the Northern Hemisphere has been covered by ice up to three miles thick, at regular intervals lasting about 100,000 years each. Very brief interglacial cycles lasting about 12,000 to 18,000 years, like our current one, have offered reprieves from the bitter cold. From this perspective, there can be no doubt that current temperatures are abnormally warm.
The average temperature of our planet has been gradually increasing on a fairly constant basis over the past 18,000 years or so since it began thawing out of the last ice age. About 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, the Earth had warmed enough to halt the advance of the glaciers and cause sea levels to rise. About 8,000 years ago, a land bridge across the Bering Strait submerged, cutting off migrations of people and animals to North America(see original for chart of temperature over 400,000 years)
As recently as 1,000 years ago, from about 800 to 1300, much of the world climate was similar to what it is now, but Greenland was warmer. Icelandic Vikings began to settle on Greenland’s southwestern coast in the 980s and raised cattle, sheep, and goats in the grasslands. Then around 1200, temperatures began to drop, causing settlements to be abandoned by 1350 or so. Atlantic pack ice began to grow around 1250, and shortened growing seasons and unreliable weather patterns, including torrential rains in northern Europe, led to the Great Famine of 1315-17." (cont'd at site)
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=927
When are you going to awaken from the mass media induced hypnosis pushing the greatest scientific hoax of all time?
http://www.icecap.us/
Stump
3 years ago
misanthropic comedians are
misanthropic comedians are not usually where one goes for environmental science.
Romeogolf
3 years ago
Hilarious Hoax Hucksters
Mopled, the comedian is you. The fact that you're, at this late stage in the game, still trotting out the predictable denier canards, is a scream!
monty
3 years ago
Anyone know
which oil and gas companies Gordo & Nancy have shares in? Carol Taylor is a millionaire married to a billionaire. Will any of these 4 care a hoot about the middle class or those less fortunate?
We'll be eating bread crumbs while they have their cake.
rac
3 years ago
Driving and Climate Change are Regressive
You can bet that the poor will suffer the effects of climate change far more than the rich just as they are forced to live along freeways and roads with heavy traffic.
People who are really poor can't afford an automobile anyway so what difference does a carbon tax make anyway.
The only mistake the libs made is trying to make in revenue neutral rather than plowing the proceeds back into public transit.
Regarding the high price of oil, who knows how long it is going to last. The carbon tax will encourage people to drive less which is the best way to save money and reduce GHG emissions.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Same Old, Same Old
Huh? Stereotypes are a tough nut to crack.
...states that "all [NDP] pricing models include a cost to consumers."
Betcha it's gonna cost the consumer more than the so-called 2.4(?)cent/litre carbon tax.
Sounds like a winning strategy! Not.
Fish-counter
3 years ago
Gas tax or more hot air?
As many have said, the recent price increases are the best incentive to curb consumption. Once again, government thinks that a new tax is a new idea. The net result will be to create work for the people who have to administer the funds. The money will go into the huge govt slush fund, never to be seen again.
What a disappointing substitute for real ideas such as:
1. Encouraging the use of electric vehicles.
2. Taxing gas guzzlers especially those in Vancouver and other cities, where they are not needed.
3. Providing real urban transit - in places other than Greater Vancouver. Like a decent passenger rail service up the Fraser Valley and up Vancouver Island.
The pimping of more taxation as a new conservation measure shows exactly how bankrupt our politicians are for innovative ideas. It is so terribly cynical that I could never vote for the party that comes up with it, provincial or federal.
So how about more electric vehicles, with research and development (no, I mean real research and development, not the paper-pushing tax shelter stuff that we Canadians usually get)
How about a bit of real leadership, with our politicians biking to work or ditching their SUV's for really economical transporation. Maybe some of them could take the bus once in a while. I don't think they are ready to handle that.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Sure Luke same old.
"Betcha it's gonna cost the consumer more than the so-called 2.4(?)cent/litre carbon tax." You mean like Campbell's tax? Increments every year and additional costs added to all goods we buy due to the higher cost of transportation?
garuvy
3 years ago
reward don't tax
Why tax an overly taxed commodity?
How about rewarding people that sell their cars, buy transit passes, take the greyhound, or just drive less.
politico
3 years ago
Campaigning on a Tax
Both Dion and James are mistaken if they believe this is the single issue campaign the media is shepherding along.
Quite frankly in Dion's case who in their right mind would actually force and election and campaign based on a new tax?
It makes sense if he is able to get people talking about a paradigm shift in thinking and governing but that it is still a stretch.
Carole is right to call out the tax but she needs to show it is just another example of Campbells wealth transfer policies. Another ideological cash grab favouring the wealthy.
Dion's Tax is a green shift, Campbell's a green shaft.
Good luck.
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Skywalker....
You're pretty well spot on this time!
You mean like Campbell's tax? Increments every year and additional costs added to all goods we buy due to the higher cost of transportation?
Les Leyne, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, June 19, 2008
New Democrat Leader Carole James' "axe the tax" campaign is an adroit, perfectly timed move that could galvanize support and define her career.
It's also the phoniest stand she's ever taken on a public issue.
The most adept part of the entire Opposition anti-gas tax strategy is that part where they have successfully buried the fact that the NDP supports a carbon tax, too. And a carbon tax, however and wherever you apply it, equals higher gas prices.
NDP policy states: "Carole James and the NDP support emission pricing and believe the best approach is an integrated one that includes a carbon tax at source, focuses on big polluters and ensures record oil and gas profits are used to support reductions in emissions.
"Implementing a system of pricing emissions at source is a way of reducing emissions that has been used in many countries."
Is there any doubt about how companies "at source" cover the cost of that emission tax?
Of course not. They pass it on. The NDP quietly admits that halfway through their framework. "All pricing models include a cost to consumers."
Leyne has described what I alluded to in my earlier post. ;)
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=03096f95-7db3-40c6-b512-2acc82ac1362&p=1
DNA
3 years ago
At least Campbell's doing something
Can we agree on one thing? We have to reduce the amount of carbon we're liberating from the earth and pumping into the atmosphere. Reasonable? Maybe amount of atmospheric carbon by 2 or 3 parts per million per year, year after year, will have no effect, but I really think that's a pretty big gamble, and I don't think humankind should take it. We started out at about 280 ppm in pre-industrial and now we're up to about 385.
So if we agree we should cut carbon emissions, there are just two ways to do it... the carrot or the stick. The carrot approach is to work through the economic system, impose carbon taxes and trading and all that, and trust that economic incentive will reduce emissions.
The stick is regulation. Pass laws that say you can't pollute and hire bureaucrats to enforce those laws.
Both approaches will decrease our standard of living, at least in the short term. Both will hurt people. There's no getting around that.
Personally, I think we need a combination of approaches. We need economic incentives and regulation, where appropriate. But we do need to attack the problem realistically. Unfortunately, it's not just big bad industry that pollutes. The NDP's "Working Families" also produce emissions, since they drive cars of SUVs, and they live in houses that need to be heated.
I agree that the Liberal's carbon tax (or gas tax) has many flaws, but it is a serious approach (within the limits of their free-market ideology) to actually do something about the problem.
I realize the NDP has produced a plan and has some members seriously concerned about the global dilemma -- but that is not the way their "Axe the Tax" program is coming across. And that's what really upsets me. Yes, the Opposition should oppose -- but not oppose the whole idea of reducing emissions.
And, politically it's stupid. The NDP isn't going to gain that much support in the northern ridings... and any support it gains will be offset by a reduction in support amongst concerned urban NDP supporters -- who very well may vote Green.
I don't expect the federal Conservatives to debate the issue in a sensible manner, despite Dion's plea for an "adult" debate.
But I do expect a degree of rationality on the part of the NDP -- federally and provincially -- and I haven't seen that yet.
What is wrong with the Liberal plans? How can they be improved and made more effective, and how can the hurt be shared more equitably? That's what I'm interested in. And I do believe that's what Canadians want to hear, not slogans like "Axe the Tax."
G West
3 years ago
What is wrong with the Liberal plans?
The Liberal plans are a scam – that is what’s wrong.
They are creating an enormous and costly bureaucratic infrastructure (please read Bill 37 if you don't believe me) to collect a tax of 2.4 cents/litre (to start with) of gas (and a similar tariff on other kinds of fuel) which, the law states, must (by definition) be refunded completely in the form of pandering payments and reductions in personal and corporate tax.
I don’t believe for even a moment that, when this plan was designed on Campbell’s credenza in January, that it would have taken the idiotic form it now does if Campbell and his advisors had had any idea what was going to happen to the price of oil since the start of 2008.
The schizophrenic nature of their policy – encouraging greater use of cars – widening bridges and building new ones – while pretending to care about greenhouse gases – is equally revelatory – for anyone who cares to look at it and listen to Kevin Falcon.
If the government does not refund all the tax it collects the government is legally bound (look at the legislation again) to penalize itself in a couple of interesting ways...
Not a penny of this tax does anything but slosh around in the government's coffers for a while.
It does not create one less traffic jam, buy one more car for Sky train, insulate one house more completely, build a single green building or convert one car or truck from gas to natural gas.
And, in the process, the Campbell tax exempts from paying the tax at all - the horrendously polluting cruise ship and airline industry.
Bizarre!
Come up with a carbon tax that does something - not a Campbell tax that only pretends so do so.
The people of British Columbia are sometimes slow - Les Leyne included, but they are not stupid.
The Campbell Tax is a pig in a poke - it should become the CEO's albatross.
This is not rocket science – it is a tax purpose built to do nothing and create the appearance of a concern for the future that, for this bunch, never reaches beyond their small circle of friends.
Skywalker
3 years ago
Luke and DNA
Gee, now Les becomes the standard bearer for the liberals tax scam or Les agrees with you. So, we should all agree with you now? What makes Les the expert? Is it that he works for the "mainstream media? How has he covered the Basi/Virk scandal? I think the last time I ever paid attention to Les was...I think it was in the last Times Colonist I bought. I think it was 15 years ago.
You also forget DNA that proposing improvements was not possible as the bill was rammed through in the dying minutes of the last session. Secondly there comes a point when an plan effects groups of people in unfair ways. It is possible that the best way is to scrap it and start over. Maybe Campbell should listen to more than his friends who are doing just fine. I also don't for one minute buy that "(within the limits of their free-market ideology)" That is just a cheap political excuse and thinking inside the box. It gives the real motivation away.
sador
3 years ago
NDP grasping at rhetorical straws
Between Mike Farnworth's let's get tough on crime rhetoric and this sudden attack by the NDP on the carbon tax it appears that the NDP platform for convincing the electorate to vote for them is comprised of the same old lame rhetoric that the right uses - Stephen Harper getting tough on crime and the tories cutting taxes. Let's please have some new ideas perhaps like acknowledging that much of the crime Farnworth talks about is caused by maintaining drug prohibition and the carbon tax that Carol James wants to cut is actually a good idea and we should be going much farther to reduce BC's carbon footprint. Please let's hear some new thinking on this. Not the same old same old rhetoric which is used be all parties on the political spectrum when they don't have anything new to add to the discourse. And I'm a paid up NDPer!!!
G West
3 years ago
sador
Before you criticize the NDP's stand you should actually read Bill 37
It's a bit of a slog, but it's worth it:
http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/1st_read/gov37-1.htm
cw
3 years ago
Where it gets really silly
To me, aside from much of the rhetoric, where it gets really silly is the idea that when gas prices have more doubled in the last year, without significant change in people's driving habits, the addition of a few cents' tax will change them.
That, coupled with the added tax breaks to major corporations "to offset the pain" takes it beyond silly.
Ian Weniger
3 years ago
Fresh thinking
Why is this entire debate stuck on changing individual behaviour when it is only collective action that will force the changes climate scientists have shown must be made in the next two years?
Put that $100 into political campaigns to make non-polluting, renewable energy a central part of public policy and law.
G West
3 years ago
Why Ian?
Because that's the political mantra that the Bureau of Public Affairs has told Campbell will work. And our government spends a lot of time and effort making certain that the idea of the 'individual' is framed as the most important thing - along with an illusion called 'choice.'
Listen to their ads, read their press releases: That's the substitute that most politicians make for real leadership.
Real leadership in this area isn't about fiddles and pandering - it's about addressing real problems in the way we live, what we see as important and valuable and how we see ourselves in terms of responsibility and accountability for both the state of the world and prospects for the future.
What Campbell has failed to understand is that his tax:
a) does precisely nothing but tread water; and
b) citizens are catching on to the fact that while Campbell talks a lot, he actually DOES nothing but play to the characters who, as Ed points out so often, have gotten us into this mess.
But things will change, US consumer confidence is at a 16 year low. Things are falling apart - sadly, only a change in the way we construct our governance will change this...and I see almost no one in either federal or provincial politics that cares about THAT problem and its solution.
Since fundamental change is likely impossible before the economy collapses, the engaged citizen is left with individual action, responsible living and spending, and, hopefully, trenchant criticism.
The alternative is hopelessness. The times are out of joint.
cyclo
3 years ago
Gast Tax
I'm a New Democrat in distress. I support gas taxes and I'm frustrated that my party has come out swinging against a necessary, if painful solution to the problems of climate change.
While I agree with much of the analysis (that there are oother sources and perhaps other ways we need to get to the same place), the need to price carbon emissions is immediate.
I would prefer that the taxes be more focused or fair - give or require the gas tax to be levied locally where there are alternatives (transit, cycling and walking), and, at least for the time being, leave them alone where people have no choices.
Giving back $100 is the most crass and counterproductive part of the plan. If we are going to tax carbon or the sources of it, we need to reinvest it in services or strategies that will enable us to get off our oil addiction.
I'm sure I don't like paying taxes as much as the next guy, but I'm actually tired of tax cuts. We are losing services and the ability of government to help shape a sustainble future. I'd like us to keep the gas tax, albeit tailored in a different fashion, and spend the proceeds more wisely.
G West
3 years ago
cyclo
I don't disagree with you - and that's the whole point. The Campbell Tax isn't a 'real' tax - it is nothing more than a money-laundering scheme. For a tax to have utility it has to be collected with some purpose other than giving it back to the individuals who actually 'have' to make the changes in their lives that responding to global warming entails.
The Campbell tax and the way the Premier is selling it - listen to his statements on the subject - is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
By all means apply a carbon tax but use the proceeds to DO something positive and don't just recycle it to your friends in a a tax cut and a pandering payment to the folks you want to vote for you in the next election.
Set up programs to insulate houses; help working people convert their work trucks to natural gas; develop real transit solutions; stop building roads and selling every gram of coal you can dig out of the ground to the Chinese.
Use the carbon tax to DO something real - but don't pretend this iteration does that.
As for the NDP, they aren't the government and they were given about 2 hours to debate a bill of more than 50 pages in the legislature before de Jong used closure to pass the thing…
Some may think that's democratic and open - I know it's not.
And when you've read Bill 37, have a look at the Regulations too - and start wondering why certain industries (airlines and cruise ships) have been given an exemption.
Yammer
3 years ago
Gas is still far too cheap
Gas is cheaper than bottled water.
Until gas is actually too expensive to burn, then we're going to keep wasting it. Petrochemicals are vitally needed for plastics. It's insane to use it as fuel.
Common sense, ecological, and health arguments have been totally ineffective motivations to come up with a popular alternative to gasoline.
Raising the price is going to work, because then the greed motive will kick in.
I'm all for making gas unaffordable.
realisticman
3 years ago
cyclo
You're quite right. The need to price carbon emissions is immediate. It seems that the NDP is opposing here, just to oppose. The Liberal tax is less than 2% on present gas prices and yet there are some people complaining when we've been waiting for something to be done for the environment.
Now the Liberals are doing something and, as you say, "the ability of government to help shape a sustainable future" is critical.
No wonder four local university professors wrote a strongly supportive piece in the Vancouver Sun today and Suzuki and many other organizations have all supported the Liberal plan. It's the right thing to do.
G West
3 years ago
Bottled water
Bottled H20 ought to be a lot more expensive too. The fact that people waste resources on such things is absurd.
alive
3 years ago
yeah but
Our country has been developed around vehicular traffic.
We have no alternative to the family car, in most cases.
So upping the price of gas will not solve the problem.
In my own case I have about 17 KM to shopping and I own a car and an electric bike. However the bike is not much good for carrying groceries home, and inclement weather happens so my car is the only possible way to go shopping.
Untill Gordo got us all housed in some giant apartment building next to a store, the solution will have to be transit.
Demanding more of my pension money does in no way change those simple facts
Fii
3 years ago
$2 a litre minimum
I can't see myself changing my driving habits (mostly just weekends for trips out of town or to get the dog to the beach) until it hits at least $2/litre. I just don't drive enough to notice it yet. I haven't noticed any less traffic on the road, either, in the past few months. It hasn't made any difference! If it's not going to affect me- someone who probably falls below the definition of (financial) "poverty line" in Canada- it's going to have to hit about $4/litre before well-off gas guzzlers even blink.
We are so disgustingly spoiled in Canada!!
happy
3 years ago
NDP Climate Action Plan revealed!
Qoute from the CBC:
Carole James -
"B.C.'s New Democrats are asking supporters to give the party money from their rebate cheques for the carbon tax the NDP opposes."
Now theres leadership and vision! And right in line ideologically with good socialist policy of wealth redistribution. I don't get why you guys are down on Carole.
Frank
3 years ago
The carbon tax
For those of you that think a gas tax is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it will save the environment:
How? realisticman says a 2% tax on gas (in addition to the 30+% other taxes already on gas) will save the environment.
So how come the existing 30+% tax on gas did not save the environment already? Did our emissions go up last year? Why yes they did. How is that possible when we already have "carbon taxes" on gas that make up over 30% of the cost?
Maybe Saudi Arabia will add 2 cents a litre to their domestic gas sales too, I'm sure that would save the world eh?
Yammer
3 years ago
Of course we have to drive something
I'm talking about sweet electric cars that run on fuel cells, or solar, or happy thoughts! Or make biodiesel from engineered plankton...anything but burning petrochemicals, they are far too valuable to turn into noxious smoke.
Frank
3 years ago
Yammer
I agree with your sentiments, my point is that increasing the gas tax by a piddly amount is not doing anything for the environment. It seems to make people, especially the mainstream media, feel better though, secure in the myth the planet is actually being helped somehow.
Nobody here would take it remotely seriously if the Saudis declared they were going to save the environment by increasing their domestic price by 2 cents while shipping as many millions of barrels as they could pump.
Yet we do the same thing and Canwest, CKNW etc laud Campbell as a modern day Ghandi.
ME2
3 years ago
Yammer
Yammer, we'll never run out of petrochemicals, now or in the future. The only limiting factor is cost, and that is well into the future too.
And since whatever product is made of them will produce pollution in the making and disposal anyway, shouldn't we be happy when it is all gone?
happy
3 years ago
Campbell listened to the Tyee!
From an article in the Tyee, one year ago exactly -
"I would like to share with you a letter now in the possession of Finance Minister Carole Taylor. The letter is signed by 70 academic economists from the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and the University of Northern British Columbia. I am one of the UBC economists.
In the letter, we call on the B.C. government to enact a revenue neutral carbon tax in order to reduce our greenhouse emissions.
Under this policy, a tax would be added to the price of carbon intensive fuels when they are sold in B.C., with the aim of inducing firms and families to switch away from goods produced with heavy use of those fuels.
The revenue neutral component of the plan would mean that other taxes (such as income taxes) would be cut at the same time as the carbon tax is introduced, leaving the revenue of the BC government unchanged and the average B.C. family with the same after tax income as they had before the reform."
And so it began...right here friends.
de Falla
3 years ago
It's the price point that's important
Marc Lee provides interesting insight into this question on Progressive-Economics.ca:
"So 50 cents a litre increase is about $210 in carbon tax equivalent. At the CEA I mused at the end of the presentation that the run-up in prices over the past three years was approximately a $270 carbon tax equivalent."
Jaccard's January 2007 report Cost Curves for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Canada used Resource Canada numbers anchored in 2005 to model the impact of various price points on fossil fuel consumption.
While the Green Party used the Jaccard report to trumpet the economic viability of a $50/Mt CO2e tax, what the report also indicated is that a tax of $200/Mt CO2e would be necessary to get to 33% below 2007 CO2e emissions in 2020.
Based upon the above, where business is usual is modelled out from 2005 prices [and predicted a declining price for oil to 2010 and then a flat price to 2020, btw] then the current price is about where we need to be.
Again, it's the price point that is important. Let the tax go!
realisticman
3 years ago
Now is the time for all good men, and women to...
I'm sure all good NDP members immediately give the party all the tax cuts they've received. Just as all the NDP caucus turn over all the salary raises that the non-partisan committee recommended.
G West
3 years ago
Non-Partisan Committee?
How soon they forget:
Sandra Robinson, a member of the independent commission to review MLA compensation, has confirmed she "doesn't agree" with some of the panel's now controversial pay-and-pension plan recommendations. "There's quite a few," disagreements said Prof. Robinson, in an exclusive interview with Public Eye. But "the biggest area of disagreement would have been on the pension - both the type and the actual size of the pension." Explained Prof. Robinson, who teaches at the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business, "I would have been comfortable with a smaller employer contribution than the one that (fellow commissioners) Sue (Paish) and Joe (Wood) preferred. I was looking to keep it at 20 percent of salary per year on the employer side. And the plan they have is 34 percent currently. I also wanted there to be constraints on the amount of the employer contribution...to protect the taxpayers." Even more, surprising, though, is the fact Prof. Robinson says changes were made to the commission's recommendations while she was out of country.
"I had a long ago committed obligation to be in Europe to teach. So we had an agreed upon deadline" to finalize the commission's recommendations "before I was leaving. And it was about four days before our true deadline. So we worked right up to that deadline. It was a bit of work - cause we didn't all see eye to eye. But we negotiated out a set of recommendations and signed-off on those. And, then, it was only after I was in Europe that they changed their minds and came up with a different set" of recommendations. "So, yeah, to be completely left out - to have no influence on the outcome - was certainly frustrating."
Prof. Robinson said she was "just told - via email - they would be doing that." She went onto add, "I was okay with us not being unanimous. And I had said (before leaving for Europe), if we don't go that route, I'll write a dissent. So there was ample opportunity for us to have conflicting opinions. But, because we had reached agreement and I was convinced that we were unanimous, I left comfortably to Europe."
A dissenting report wasn't written. But, said Prof. Robinson, "It's kind of hard to write a dissent when you can't actually know what's going to be in the final report" - which she didn't see until it was publicly released. Prof. Robinson later attempted to retract her statements, which were made during an on-the-record, taped interview with Public Eye. The commission's final report acknowledges Prof. Robinson disagreed with "certain aspects of this report" but didn't elaborate. Public Eye was unable to contact the commission late yesterday.
from Public Eye Online - May 10, 2007.
I won't bother to quote some of the further 'non-partisan' things Ms Paish also said when she entered into the debate about her report ...
but they're out there.
The Campbell government never does anything that's non-partisan.
(Emphasis mine)
Yammer
3 years ago
ME2
I'm not a purist. I don't live in the fantasy land of zero pollution (that glistening kingdom, one down from the anarchosyndicalist commune of zero capitalism).
I just think that non-gas-burning cars are practical, and I want to buy one. It's stupid to dig for energy that you can get out of the sky for free. And it's dangerous to keep the Saudi princes in riches, they certainly aren't doing anything beneficial with it.
JollyRoger
3 years ago
Need energy alternatives
As the little guy, I can't convince utility companies & corporations to change things so I have alternatives to using hydrocarbons. Electricity works out to be $0.50 per litre of diesel (in terms of heat production). There isn't enough electrical power supplied to the dock. I'd love to take transit but it would take 3 hours to get to work, and transit isn't available on weekends where I live on a small sailboat (rural Hamilton in east Richmond). I have two wind generators and six solar panels for electricity but their production is limited.
Those with higher incomes have a larger carbon footprint ("Richest Canadians have largest ecological footprint: study", CBC News, June 24). Yes, drivers are the largest group, but let's do it per capita. Since corporations are legally "a person", making tons of money, they're producing more than their fair share of greenhouse gases.
There are two cement plants along the river and you can SEE the greenhouse gases coming out... and they won't be taxed?
Axe the gas tax! because it's not a carbon tax!
Skywalker
3 years ago
Take heart..
We now have the new Finance Minister promising that he's going to spend our tax dollars to counter the move against the tax with a government advertising campaign. Isn't it just great! The NDP spends their party funds campaigning against the tax and the Liberals spend our money trying to convince us that they are wrong. I guess we even pay for the Liberal electioneering now.
happy
3 years ago
But Skywalker
If the NDP wasn't spending money protesting the tax the government wouldn't have to respond, would they.
So in a way it's the NDP wasting our tax money again! (Hey I know this is stupid but it makes as much sense as 90% of the rest of what I read here)
Smile
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
Wanna See the NDP Price Out It's Carbon Tax Plan..
Need I repeat:
Well, all you New Democrats, let's all agree that the NDP should provide a cost analysis of its carbon tax plan in order that the average voter we be able to comprehend the NDP's cost to consumers of its plan!
It's only just and fair, n'est pas?
Then let's compare the costs to the consumer of the Liberal and NDP carbon tax plans and then let the voters decide! ;)
Luke Skywalker
3 years ago
And Some More Hypocracy...
Firstly, a "carbon tax" is a centre-left concept, from centre-left Europeans, to centre-left New Democrats, to the centre-left federal Liberals under Dion.
A "carbon tax" just ain't a centre-right concept where those on the centre-right are stereotypically known as "tax-cutters", not "tax-increasers".
In that vein, it suprises me that the NDP, already so far behind in the polls, would be desperate enough to champion themselves as "tax-cutters"... yep the hypocracy... particularly when their own carbon tax plan will also cost the consumer.
In any event, back to public policy and the New Democrats "natural constituency":
University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver ripped the NDP in an interview for releasing "inaccurate" information about the tax, which the Liberal government unveiled earlier this year to help fight global warming.
"I find the behaviour of the opposition in this reprehensible," said Weaver, one of the scientists on a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore last year.
Hmmmmmm.... do I see a Green legislator elected in 2009?
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/capital_van_isl/story.html?id=b877e9ee-6ba9-44f3-91f8-c5c7645e7a94
happy
3 years ago
And more humour
The NDP pandering to the F-350 driving Rednecks for votes....too funny
RickW
3 years ago
R/Man
They should ought to have stayed in their ivory towers. It's the real world out here, and I doubt any of them have an inkling what living a 20 grand a year is like..........
Skywalker
3 years ago
Luke you are sooo predictable.
Imagine the NDP came out with a half-backed carbon tax and a $100 bribe to make it seem better. Oh yes we know what happened there. All the right wingers and media crapped all over them for a $100 check and they would do the same with a tax.
The people least able to do anything about their situation are bled dry so they will stop driving and let the well-heeled take over the roads. This is going to save the climate. meanwhile the oil companies who see the willingness of their friends in high places to tolerate outrages prices and profits will jack up the price even more. We've heard it all before.
When the OPEC nations demanded more in royalties for their oil the oil companies made massive increases in profits. All the while we were mad at the Arabs for demanding a fairer share.
If all a scientist can come up with is tax the hell out of a commodity so people won't buy it and and screw anyone living where there is no transit worth riding, then they are not much of an expert on what this will do to the economy. Their view is on one aspect of the issue.
Where politics are concerned even those who are ion what we consider jobs that require intelligent sometimes come up with half-baked opinions.
Frank
3 years ago
happy
Hang on there happy, the NDP isn't spending public tax dollars, the Libs are. Its not like the Libs are using their own party funds.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
Speaking of hypocrisy, how about the BC Liberals portraying themselves as friends of the environment? I couldn't help but notice you don't find that hypocritical.
Frank
3 years ago
Luke
What would be the point? The Liberals lie about what they'll do after they're elected anyway.
happy
3 years ago
Hi Frank!
Come on buddy....I pointed out it was tongue in cheek.
We can both find endless examples of both parties using our money when they are in power to advance their agenda.
The NDP had ten years of it, now the pendulum has swung.
I call it Balance.
igregson
3 years ago
Carbon Tax melee
On thing I agree with the NDP, the carbon tax is going to be THE issue in the 2009 BC election. I also agree by the time May 17, 2009 rolls around many people will have forgotten all about the carbon tax in retrospect as gas will be over the $2 mark per litre by then.
The Liberals HAVE to explain this tax and how it works to people. The $100 cheque included a small brochure, this might help. It is a small step but a very much needed step.
The NDP will come off looking like their old anti-enviro selves circa 1996. Any enviro knows that a carbon tax of some sort is good and is better than no carbon tax at all. If there is one issue that show the true enviro stripe of the NDP this will be the one.
As environmental issues will be on the forefront of any election at any level in the next few years, carbon tax will be right up there, the NDP have positioned themselves on the wrong side completely if they want to retain their minimal green values - and lets face it they were johnny come lately's on enviro issues to begin with.
SELL YOUR CARS - LOBBY HARD FOR TRANSIT and ALTERNATIVES - FORM an automobile co-op in your area. TAKE THE LEAD PEOPLE !
G West
3 years ago
Fair???
What would have been fair would be a government that actually cared about debate in the legislature - a government that didn't use closure on virtually every bill it introduced and which didn't behave - through the speaker - as if there was a fire in the chamber and everyone had to get out.
Instead of actually earning their pay, they checked out without actually observing any democratic 'traditions.'
In fact, so anxious were they to get out of Victoria this spring that, I've been told, the Finance Minister did not even see the Carbon Tax Regulation - the one that exempts the cruise ship industry and the airline industry - until the day she signed it.
I think the Campbell Government has a lot more questions to answer than the Opposition does on this file - in fact, the democrats in the Campbell Party weren't willing to spend any more than a couple of hours of their precious time in the House actually defending a piece of legislation that is more than 50 pages long.
It's not the NDP that needs to start answering hard questions - it is Gordon Campbell.
Frank
3 years ago
igregson
"Any enviro"? I think you meant "Only enviros".
If there's one issue that proves how cheap it is to buy off enviros its this one. For $100 they're willing to support a government that wants to set up a coal mine in every neighborhood, a fish farm in every cove, export raw logs, allow offshore drilling, expand the highway system etc etc
But for $100 the enviros will happily turn a blind eye to all that and instead feel good about themselves and their Liberal government as they put their $100 cheque against the down payment on a new Toyota RAV.
Yep, we were spending all our time on unimportant issues that don't register with enviros. Things like health care, education, poverty and protecting children. But then let's face it those issues still don't hit the radar screen down at Green Party HQ do they?
happy
3 years ago
One things for sure
Carole and the NDP brain trust were desperately searching for a "wedge issue" to fire up the public.
From the comments here and on other sites its quite clear that the "wedge" is doing more to divide the Faithful than swing the undecided's.
A case study of politically shooting yourself in the foot. Again
Frank
3 years ago
happy
From Vaughn Palmer :
But the Liberals have set aside more than enough money to take a stab at it.
This year's mostly unspent budget for the climate action secretariat includes $5 million for "communications and education," $4 million for "outreach and engagement" and a $20-million no-strings-attached contingency fund "to support further initiatives."
Even a third of that would underwrite one of the biggest single-issue advertising campaigns in provincial history.
I wonder if that $29 million they'll be spending on telling us how good the tax is is part of the whole "revenue-neutral" bit?
Also, I found it interesting that in Vaughn's column the Libs were talking only about tax cuts, nothing at all about the environment.
Frank
3 years ago
happy again
That's only because unlike you guys on the Right we don't all think the same about everything.
happy
3 years ago
Hi Frank again
Frank says:
"That's only because unlike you guys on the Right we don't all think the same about everything."
How do you expect a divided party to win an election then? I thought winning in politics was the idea.
Moral victories don't count.
BTW, you needn't have posted the VP column. I already agreed politicians are terrible wasters of our money for their own political purposes. No argument there. Unless you try to paint the NDP as Saints in this department and open up a huge can of worms.
Frank
3 years ago
happy
I don't remember getting that Civics lesson. I think you've confused the raison d'etre of sports with public service. I thought it was about putting forward ideas and trying to be a positive influence on the community?
This is why you guys on the Right should call yourselves the "Faithful". (WorkingMan-CityPerson uses that phrase too)
Yet it seems to me whatever Minister Campbell tells you what to believe that day you all line up and repeat the mantra pretty much word for word. Never any dissent at all unlike on the Left.
Trying to point out the Libs are spending $29 million in tax money to tell us how good a tax is whereas you had said the NDP was responsible for that spending because they disagree with a gov't policy.
happy
3 years ago
Then why bother Frank
Seeing as how winning elections are not important anymore, why are you always
urging everyone to vote NDP?
I love this:
"This is why you guys on the Right should call yourselves the "Faithful". (WorkingMan-CityPerson uses that phrase too)"
What are you insinuating? That I have multiple Tyee personalities? Thats against the rules and honest people like you and me wouldn't do that Frank. Please give me a tiny bit of credit
Frank
3 years ago
happy
No, I wasn't. I was saying you and WorkingMan-CityPerson use the same phrase referring to the Left when in fact I think if the phrase applies at all its to those of you on the Right.
Anymore?
What I think is important is the ideologies behind the parties. Parties are vehicles for ideas. That's the only important thing they do. Yet, you're saying that's not important, what is important is winning.
If elections are about winning then why bother having ideologies at all? Or at the very least, why bother having different ideologies. If winning was all-important then it would make more sense for the weaker party to just copy the ideas of the more popular party but have a more attractive leader.
And instead of voting we could have a hockey game to decide how we're governed. It would probably get a higher turnout.
Frank
3 years ago
The Faithful
Realisticman used to be against taxes and believed glabal warming was a fraud.
At Liberal-church minister Campbell suddenly announced global warming was real and a 2 cent tax on domestic energy consumption would fix it.
Realisticman now believes in global warming and supports the new tax.
The "Faithful" indeed.
happy
3 years ago
Just call me Reverend then
You are right, political parties are vehicles for ideas / ideologies. But if the party can't win a fair election based on that ideology....then how can they implement it? By opposing everything from the sidelines (sorry, sports analogy) isn't really making Carole shine in the eyes of the voters. You've seen the polls.
I'm sure if you were to ask all the NDP MLA's they would tell you winning in politics is EVERYTHING. They are politicians after all, just like those scum of the earth Liberals the (uneducated & brainwashed) public keeps electing.
Frank
3 years ago
happy
They can't. But what's the alternative? Lie? Change ideology to match the more popular party so there's no difference?
The NDP loses whether they agree or disagree with the Socreds. I'd rather they lost and stick to their principles than abandon them (and lose anyway). Because if they abandon their ideology why would I support them?
Then they're really bad at it.
If they mean to them, sure, its their living. But as long as they win their seat they get paid regardless of whether their party forms gov't.
However, I don't choose my ideology based on their personal concerns.
I'm sure you meant to say that the Libs win because voters simply change what they believe based on what the Socred-Liberal leader tells them. If tomorrow Mr Campbell told you guys on the Right the carbon tax is a dumb idea and he's withdrawing it because there is no such thing as global warming the Socred-Liberal voters would say he's right.
ME2
3 years ago
Still, the Ndp's our only real option
Frank, I really admire your steadfast and informed support of the NDP. There is much that the Party can be proud of, such as its various social legislations. However, I am distressed with your statement which gives away environmental ground to Happy :
Quoting him - "- and lets face it they were johnny come lately's on enviro issues to begin with"
and responding with :
"Yep, we were spending all our time on unimportant issues that don't register with enviros. Things like health care, education, poverty and protecting children. But then let's face it those issues still don't hit the radar screen down at Green Party HQ do they?" [i]
It's a shame that you so blindly support unions within the NDP, regardless of the cost, for without that situation there would be NO reason whatever for a Green Party to exist.
The simple fact is that environmental ethics and Socialist policy go hand-in-hand, and until recently I've never met an enviro who was not also an NDP'er.
The first really "green" gov't in BC (long before it was the "in" thing) was Dave Barrett's, as was Harcourt's some 20 years later. The NDP's rank and file is decidedly green.
Barrett was abandoned by the turncoat Jack Munro's IWA gang of thugs. Harcourt's attempt to reverse the despoilation of our forests through the Forest Practices Code was left to die of deliberate neglect by Glen Clark and Dan Miller's pro-COFI union cabal.
The point here is that if devoid of the internal disruption provided by self-serving anti-environmental unions, the NDP could hands-down attract the votes of both social activists and enviros, for in the end, they share the same goals - as do most BC'ers, I think.
With the NDP to vote for, there should be no niche for a Green Party.
Frank
3 years ago
ME2
The simple answer is that the NDP can't be, and obviously isn't, all things to all people.
I've never heard the NDP say they were against the environment and wanted to pollute as much of the planet as possible. On the other hand, they, like all parties have to decide what gets priority. There's only so many resources available.
I didn't even mention unions. But yes I totally support the relatively new concept of unions just as others totally support the relatively new concept of corporations.
Not ignoring the stuff you wrote in-between but the unspoken assumption behind your words is that the Greens are the same as the NDPers. I don't believe that's true. In fact, speaking to the people on this forum who say they support the Green Party I believe Greens are right-wing environmentalists. Cycling Commuter being a prime example.
I'm sure not all Greens are as right-wing as CC but their policies are certainly not focused on anything that looks socialist.
As for what what you wrote in-between, at one time enviros had to support the NDP because the environment was a much higher priority for them than it was with the Socreds. I think that still is but the existence of the Greens means right-wing enviros have their own place now.
To look at it another way, let's say the Greens win the next election. What do you think the priorities will be? Homelessness? Children in care? Poverty?
Not a chance.
happy
3 years ago
Thanks for proving my point guys
Carole, through her "Axe the tax" position is dividing the party between the "enviros" and the "unions first" factions of the party, as opposed to the desired effect of dividing the right-ees.
The two of you are arguing over it just like I said.
Is Carole perhaps a stalking horse for the neocons?
ME2
3 years ago
You've got it wrong, Happy
Happy, I'm in full support of unions, just as I am not anti-capitalism. Both have a necessary place in a well-functioning society. But neither should hold a position of power in a political party, since they always push government into supporting their own objectives at the cost of other sectors. Religion is another such example.
The promise of Democracy was that a governnent elected by the people would seek to place the restrictions necessary to ensure that no sector, whether it is Labour, Business, Religion, OR Government, could impose itself to the detriment of the others, destroying the unity of the whole.
Although that philosophy is what you neocons propagandise that you believe in, the performance of the governments you promote tends toward the exact opposite of this, and Campbell's gov't is a prime example.
So my challenge to Frank was not an attempt to destroy the NDP, but to effect change from within, and to exert my belief that to remain strong, a democratic organisation must constantly undergo self-examination. Only the stupid would take that as being a sign of weakness.
Even so, if NDP membership was restricted to union members only, I would still vote for it instead of your parties, simply on its record. OTOH, even if Liberal membership was free or even if it paid a stipend, I'd be ashamed to exhibit such a lack of good judgement.
ME2
3 years ago
Frank
You write :
"The simple answer is that the NDP can't be, and obviously isn't, all things to all people."
And :
"There's only so many resources available."
So the NDP is the property of the unions and the social activists?
And :
"I believe Greens are right-wing environmentalists."
So the Left-wing enviros can go hang, the NDP doesn't need their votes anyway? Wasn't it that attitude that damn near destroyed the Party in the 1990 Convention? Wasn't it a huge achievement for Harcourt when he brokered a compromise between the unions and the enviros?
You Also write :
"I didn't even mention unions. But yes I totally support the relatively new concept of unions just as others totally support the relatively new concept of corporations."
Obviously I'm sadly out-of-touch here. Just what are these "relatively new concepts"?
happy
3 years ago
We're not that far off ME2
You make some very astute observations on the roles of unions and capitalists in a well functioning society. They need each other.
You also point out correctly that no group should hold undue influence within a political party. We both know thats a pipe dream in BC.
So it appears both sides are pretty well dug in. The BC Fed will never loosen its controlling ties and influence within the NDP anymore than the business community will stop supporting the Libs.
You say a democratic organization must constantly undergo self examination to stay strong and adapt. Agreed. So when the Libs turn over a new leaf and reach out to the First Nations and actually achieve a couple of Settlements they get totally trashed here as crass opportunists (and thats a polite description) What new leaf do you see the NDP turning over to reach out those who don't trust the NDP? She tried to distance the party from the Fed and we all know where that went. No where. Unless this new stance of Carole as Champion of the Hummer Owners Association is supposed to convince voters the leapord has changed its spots.
Now theres a crass opportunist.
ME2, you can vote for whoever you please and thats your right.I don't appreciate the fact you insinuate people who don't think like you are not worthy.
Frank
3 years ago
happy
You can't divide the right-ees. You're all part of the same hive :-)
Nor should NDP policy focus on doing so as in the long run its irrelevant.
Frank
3 years ago
ME2
The NDP is the property of those that buy a membership. Which is the way it should be.
I prefer bottom-up with all the necessary arguing over policy that entails than simply attending the Liberal church to be told what I now believe.
If they're on the Left what is it about NDP policy they don't like? Not wanting to raise the price of gas further because it hurts people? Left-wing enviros are free to buy a membership, argue their position and so on. But I'd want to hear the argument before I decide whether I agree with it.
But the Green party exists in other provinces and at the federal level too. Every NDP party in the country didn't "make a mistake". The Greens simply wanted their own party with their own priorities.
Corporations and unions aren't that old.
Frank
3 years ago
happy
This was another example of the Liberal church. When the NDP were in power the radio call-in shows and the papers were full of right-wingers trashing the Nisga and other natives. And the talk was of how Campbell was going to put a stop to that nonsense and have a referendum.
Which he did. And there was much rejoicing among the right-wingers.
Then Mr Campbell changed his mind and what I loved was so did every one of his supporters. Maybe the reason the right-wing side of the political spectrum is so monolithic can be explained by hypnotism?
The NDP doesn't have to "turn over a new leaf". If people want to change the NDP all they have to do is join it and put forward good arguments.
Besides, the electoral history of the province shows there is absolutely no way for James or anyone else to lure right-wing voters away from the hive. NDP policy and leaders don't matter to the Right, they just know every NDP policy and leader is bad.
Yammer
3 years ago
Happy!
"...NDP pandering to the F-350 driving Rednecks for votes....too funny"
Well those are the "working families," I guess.
happy
3 years ago
But Yammer
I thought the "Axe the tax" stand was mainly in support of the non urban regions, where there are no transit options, longer distances to drive, etc.,etc.
So where has Carole made Ground Zero to take a stand for these "working families"? Surrey apparently, judging from the news coverage. Home of the jacked up 4x4 pickups decked out with mud flaps with nudie girls on them.
Maybe I'm a little bent but I sure find humour in things like that....
ME2
3 years ago
Frank
Well, I have to say that I'm less that enthused by your response.
So I'm left with the decision I came to a couple of months ago, to support the NDP in the sure knowledge that if Campbell gets in again, in future elections we'll be only arguing over what to do with the crumbs as we face his irreversible give-aways of OUR environment.
Social legislation can be rewritten, Frank, but ownership of resources can be reversed, if at all, only at a tremendous buy-back cost to the public.
happy
3 years ago
Even though I didn't vote
Even though I didn't vote for Harcourt I wasn't surprised or suicidal when he won the election. He had done a respectable job as Vacouver mayor and said all the right things prior to the election - "We're not the bad old NDP and won't spend all your grandchildrens money running up deficet budgets"
And left to his own devices that probably would have been true.
BUT, in my opinion, under "pressure" from the Fed he made Glen the Funance minister.
happy
3 years ago
Whoops! Didn't finish...
Hit "post" by mistake. As I was saying, Glen then brought in the biggest income tax increase in provincial history.
So Frank, the NDP was trying to turn over a "new leaf", Harcourt got it. Georgetti had other ideas.
G West
3 years ago
And here we are, STILL
STILL fighting elections almost two decades in the past.
We have, right now, the most anti-democratic, pro-business, anti-people government in the last hundred years. The worst government with the worst record in modern memory. The least open, least accountable, most hypocritical, dishonest, disingenuous and self-centered government anyone has ever seen.
The only thing we should be talking about is getting rid of Campbell. The NDP is the only viable alternative, the vote won't result in a real reflection of the democratic 'will' of the whole population anyway - by definition.
At least it will rid the Legislature of a tyrant who has failed to keep any of his promises and gone a long way toward ruining the social infrastructure of the place - for the poor reward of a lower provincial tax rate.
Some deal!
Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond today announced that children in care in this province have a better likelihood of ending up in prison than they do of graduating from high school.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/06/26/bc-forster-kids-report.html
Let's make the Premier stand on his record - that's the CEO principle, isn't it?
happy
3 years ago
Democracy West?
What was democratic about an unelected group that represents 20% of BC workers in charge of the government?
THAT is the number one reason people don't like the NDP. Carole understands this but can't bite the hand that feeds the party.
Say, what about that class warrior Glen now trying to bust the Save On union? Bought out for a few pieces of gold? Why didn't he get a cushy job with the Fed after he got booted. Even Svend was given a comfy seat
Frank
3 years ago
happy
Taking a shot at the half-million people that live in Surrey?
How so? The NDP isn't monolithic. Harcourt and Clark and James and Barrett and Skelly et al don't "turn over new leafs". They are who they are before they become leaders. The membership of the party is constantly in flux.
First, what unelected group?
Second, you support a party paid for and run by big business. Remember the line about people in glass houses throwing rocks?
Frank
3 years ago
ME2
If I had a nickel every time I was less than enthused by reading a comment on here...
I think that ship has sailed. Besides, the Right is almost always the government, so there is no way to block them from selling off our resources wholesale as they've already done in the past.
Frank
3 years ago
The Right-wing Church
The Socred-Liberals will never change as long as the people deciding who will and won't be leader is decided in the back rooms of BC business.
There was once a time of trouble in the church. It was after the time of the prophet named Bennett. Scandal after scandal had served to make a few right-wingers troubled souls. There was much gnashing of teeth and talk of some not showing up on election day to battle the barbarians that were at the gate. Barbarians who would tax the Lords of BC. Verily it was so.
The Lords of BC looked out on the sheep and decided that those that had become troubled were upsetting others and that there weren't enough of them. Something had to be done.
There was once a man in the land named Gordon Wilson. He had built up his own little ministry with some disgruntled souls. Souls that together with the Lord's sheep would outnumber the socialists on voting day. This fact made the Lords smile. They must bring their big flock together with the little flock. And it would serve to rejuvenate the spirit of those few who had become troubled.
But the Lords of BC didn't like the leader of that Liberal ministry. He had to go. They had their own prophet named Gordon Campbell in mind. He had showed that he was a faithful disciple of the Lords in the past when he served as mayor of Vancouver and his brother wrote many things praising the Lords. He would do fine.
So the Lords of BC decided to use their money to get rid of Gordon Wilson and replace him with Gordon Campbell. No one cared that even a few years ago Campbell wasn't a member of the Liberal party. Why didn't they care? Because they're sheep.
The Lords of BC knew the old Socred brand still inspired many hundreds of thousands of sheep, and that those sheep had been taught to hate the name Liberal but they knew that all would be right once the Lords told them to get their act together.
Frank
3 years ago
Book II
So the Lords of BC got rid of Wilson and replaced him with Campbell, and remade the Liberal party in the image of the Socred party and the Lords looked at what they had done saw it was good. Verily it was so.
And the Lords of BC decreed that any actual Liberals still left that don't like the way we do things can be kept in line or booted out of the flock.
And lo and behold the Lords of BC made it so.
And now the flock believes they have always been Liberals. And they hate environmentalists with their wacky ideas like carbon taxes.
But when the environment gets so bad the sheep have to drink bottled water, the Lords decide to charge the sheep for drinking their bottled water and tell them its to encourage more drinking of the river because they say, the Lords have always been environmentalists and have always supported carbon taxes.
Some Lords find it hard to say this without laughing in front of the sheep so they stay well in the back and just sign the holy cheques.
The sheep nod in unison that it is good to pay the Lords the carbon tax which the Lords don't have to pay. And verily it was so.
Meanwhile the Lords have to turn away and hide their faces so as to laugh at how stupid the sheep are.
And verily it was so. Verily verily verily verily, life is but a dream.
realisticman
3 years ago
From what I hear and read
It looks like the BCNDP and Gregor Robertson against the world. Praise for this tax is coming in from all over.
Frank
3 years ago
See no evil...
Which doesn't include polls in BC apparently.
Just get out of church?