Categories: Capital Read, Inside the Queensway

BREAKING – Another Liberal candidate flees in terror. . .

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 1:14pm - 0 Comments

. . . his senses apparently so deadened by the horrifying prospect of campaigning on the Green Shift that he’s running in the wrong direction! The calls are coming from inside the house!

Former police chief to carry Liberal banner in Palliser

REGINA – Former Regina City Police Chief Calvin Johnston will be the Liberal candidate for Palliser, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion announced today.

“I am proud that Calvin Johnston has decided to run as the Liberal candidate for the riding of Palliser,” said Mr. Dion at a press conference in Regina. “As former Chief of Police of Regina, Mr. Johnston understands that the most effective way to tackle crime is not simply through tougher prison sentences, but it is also about addressing the root causes of crime. This is why Mr. Johnston was so successful in making Regina a safer place.”

Hee. Sorry about that. I just can’t resist blowing up a good narrative, y’all.

To be fair, despite being exactly the sort of supporter that the Tories have been wooing with such strategic ardor with their tough-on-crime policies, it still seems unlikely that even a former chief of police will be able to pry loose the Conservatives’ grip on Palliser – except, of course, for the still-unexplained absence of Dave Batters, the sitting MP, who – as far as we know – is still planning on running for the party in the upcoming election, despite having dropped out of sight back in July due to unspecified personal issues.

UPDATE: I’ve edited my original post based on Batters’ announcement that he would not be seeking reelection.

Alternately, if with Batters were to having withdrawn from the race, the local party association will be under pressure to nominate someone in record time – not because of the potential threat posed by Johnston, but by the NDP, which held the riding from when it was created back in 1997 until 2004, when Batters beat out incumbent Dick Proctor by just 124 votes. (This time around, the Dippers are running former mayor Don Mitchell.)

Anyway, I’m sure that if you ask Ryan Sparrow, he’ll explain how this is just more evidence that the Liberals are flailing in hideous, agonizing disarray over Stephane Dion’s malevolent megalomaniacal non-leader-beingness. Maybe he’ll even put you on his mailing list!

Tags: avert your eyes candidates; it may take other forms, dick proctor, Election Watch, garry oledzki, Green shift, liberal meltdown, liberals love criminals, NDP, outremont all over again, relax it's not like they're going to win, ryan sparrow

More by kadyomalley

madeyoulook

Oh, sorry, forgot about your GST rebate point. No, not the same. Dion wants to rebate rural polluters because they pollute more (well, ok, actually he’s doing it to try and buy the rural vote, since rural ridings tend to have fewer voters, rural voters have disproportionate power). The GST rebate seeks to avoid punishing the poor.
madeyoulook

Uh-oh, that madeyoulook is in some kind of trouble. Thwim is still out there harvesting all the libel lingering in old comment threads left to fallow…
Steve Wart

Don’t forget all those rural cattle pumping out methane (CH4) day and night. Much worse than CO2. Except it’s a rural gas, so no politician really wants to talk about it.

In case anyone is actually interested in helping the poor, shutting down the real sacred cows (aka marketing boards) will do more to lower the cost of living than any GST rebate. The family farm is long gone. Corporate welfare should be an election issue, but funnily, it never is.

An interesting statistic is that 68% of US corporations pay no tax at all. I imagine the statistic is similar in Canada. The usual conclusion is that big companies aren’t paying taxes, but it’s actually the small businesses that don’t pay taxes, preferring instead to write off expenses (like say, gas and car payments) and their profits are instead taxed at a much lower personal rate on dividend payments.

But tweaking the tax code is a waste of time. The cost of bailing out all the bad loans in the US and Europe will hammer their public accounts, and the consequences to Canada are the real reason Harper is calling the election now. Six months from now the state of the economy will be dire and he will need to cut hard and deep. PromArt is only the beginning.
Russ Kehoe

madeyoulook how is anybody getting shafted? you CONs seem to be who have the hardest time grasping the concept of The Green Shift. It is quite simple, if you have trouble understanding the word “shift” consider it as moving (shifting) income tax to user tax. As far as truckers go, they should not be on the roads the way they are. They do the most damage to the road surface, yet all the rest of commuters subsidize that. Moving goods by train would/could/should be one of the answers. Another item conveniently forgotten in this is the tax credits received when using fuel for business related expenses. You do not pay taxes on expenses!
Andrew

“Sorry Andrew, but your second sentence there is completely refuted by the first part of your first sentence.”

Actually, it’s not. The difference is that they are not given rebates based on how much carbon they consume. Thus, the incentive is to adopt any carbon reduction measures that are cheaper than the increased cost of energy. It’s pretty simple economics, so don’t take my word for it. Ask an economist.

“Rural people emit more CO2, it is said. CO2 is bad, it is said (sh, nobody tell all the green leaves). But we can’t say rural people are bad, and we certainly can’t punish them more for emitting more CO2, even though the Green Shift is supposed to punish CO2.”

They are punished equally for the amount of CO2 they emit. They are given more money as an offset because it is expected to cost more to reduce their emissions, or rather, there is a higher amount that isn’t reasonably avoided.

It is the same as the GST rebate. The GST rebate, low income earners can choose to spend on GST (consumption) or not (investment or exempt items–food, housing). When I was a student, I paid far less in GST than what I received in rebates. The GST is like a carbon tax on consumption.
kody

Another Poll out, by Strategic Counsel:

“Asked who would make the best prime minister, 49.9 per cent chose Mr. Harper, followed by NDP leader Jack Layton at 30.5 per cent and Mr. Dion at 19.6 per cent.

Mr. Harper’s popularity extends across the country, except Atlantic Canada, where Mr. Layton held a slight 43-39 edge.”

It’s a good thing Canadians don’t ever consider who will be prime-minister…..when they’re voting for the prime-minister,

or Dion would be in trouble.
Steve Wart

Andrew I mustn’t be an economist because I don’t understand your argument at all.

If people are being “punished” equally (presumably by paying the same amount for their carbon emissions), how does it make sense to reimburse those with higher costs, if the objective is to reduce emissions?

I agree with you that “regressive” taxes like the GST and carbon taxes are more fair. My concern is the lack of transparency in the way that “progressives” tweak those taxes to support politically favoured groups. As usual, it’s the insiders who benefit from these policies while the rest of us are stuck in the cold.
T. Thwim

Because you reimburse people in general for their higher non-avoidable costs. The ideal of a carbon tax is to tax the emissions heavy choices, in order to encourage different choices being made.

When there is no choice, however, the hardship incurred isn’t fair. This is especially true at the beginning phases, before the tax has had the opportunity to encourage competition and development forming around sustainable products.

Now some could say, “Of course you have a choice, you could choose to find another career”, unfortunately, that’s not realistic because these careers are still required for our economy to function properly.

I suppose we can hope for a future where carbont taxes have provided enough incentive that alternatives (clean diesal, hydrogen, whatever) become realistic and then we’ll start applying the tax to those other sectors where the choice exists.
madeyoulook

There you are, Thwim! You got that libel list ready yet?

Go ahead and keep defending the “Preferred Polluter Pass” rebate system. I’m sure the rural voters will love the pander.
T. Thwim

Huh, well I suppose if you want to frame it that way it’s valid. You’ve got me on that one.

Honestly, I wasn’t thinking of it in those terms, with those being sources of emissions that are required for us to function and currently non-replacable. It’s rather like calling the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped a preferred layabout welfare system. But then, you probably do just that, don’t you?
Andrew

madeyoulook, it isn’t a rebate as it is not proportional to emissions. Thus rural residents have the same incentive to reduce emissions.
Wayne

Good point Steve. It always works this way once you start going down the nanny gov’t road way of thinking deciding that you know best how to best spend the hard earned dollars of the voters and who will get some later we promise they say. These fine idealogical liberal ideas will be managed accordingly and after all they know what is better for you so just eat your broccoli and hand over the bucks and don’t forget those evil meanie conservatives have a hidden agenda.
Steve Wart

Thwim, how does the Dion plan distinguish “non-avoidable” costs from “avoidable” costs?
madeyoulook

Andrew: madeyoulook, it isn’t a rebate as it is not proportional to emissions. Thus rural residents have the same incentive to reduce emissions.
MYL: Please read the news report. I got from it that Dion wants to offer incentives to purchase more carbon-efficient technology, but this would only be available to (rural) farmers, etc. Same incentive? Pshaw. “Preferred Polluter Pass” rebate fits far better. See my above comment where Dion wants market forces to work for the rest of us, but he has no problem using our taxes to prime the pump for selected vo–, uh, polluters.

TT: rather like calling the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped a preferred layabout welfare system. But then, you probably do just that, don’t you?
MYL: Words-in-others-mouth syndrome again, T. Guaranteed income support for the severely handicapped is a sign of a compassionate society. Guaranteed income for the able-bodied fakers (and do not for a second suggest there are none) is a sign of a sucker society. Canada should be justifiably proud of the former, and should work much harder at freeing itself of the latter.

TT: or is it just libel again?
MYL: Wow, a serious charge that remains, so far, unsubstantiated. I am more than willing to apologize and retract libellous statements from the past. I will appreciate your pointing out to us all, for my public shaming, every instance of libel that justified that charge. Your failure to do so will attract a charge of allergy to the truth in your own direction, pal…
madeyoulook

It has now been over 18 hours since a challenged charge of present and past libel has gone unsubstantiated, so the MYL News Desk is prepared to declare T THWIM a LYING TROLL, undeserving of any further attention, or feeding, at Blog Central.

We now return you to regular programming, already in progress.
madeyoulook

Uh-oh, forgot to turn off bold. This is a test to see if it’s off.