• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

ArmyRick said:
On the hard left vote Trudeau has lost much loyalty there.
-Looking interfere SNC-Lavalin (Anti-corporate types pissed)
-Treating JWR, Jane Philpott and Celina Caesar-Chavvennes like dirt (pissed off the feminist and Indigenous crowd)
-Dancing like a fool in India (Many Indo-Canadians found insulting)
-Pushing the LGQBT (whatever letters) + agenda very hard (pissed off Muslims)
-Juice water box thing incident (Made most people cringe)\
-Even Poly Souviens anti-gun group is very disappointed with him.

I think the problem with Trudeau is that even the hard left sees through his "acting skills" and know exactly what he is.
Click to expand...
You forgot the billions of dollars that have disappeared without a paper trail.
 
Retired AF Guy said:
The Canadian Press is reporting on it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. They’re basically being much more frank about the exact same logic I’ve described applying to the NDP. Biggest difference is the BQ are expressly a provincial party but on the federal stage. A few of their demands might actually find some support elsewhere, including the prairies of all places.
 
I think this is a good move for the BQ, better, I suspect, than it was for the NDP. Prime Minister Trudeau is desperate (not too strong a word) for support for a few months while he tries to turn things around.

But it is a double edged sword for the Liberals: allying themselves with the BQ will look bad to many federalist voters, including many who are inclined to vote Liberal, and the BQ may gain support in Québec at the LPC's expense.
 
Edward Campbell said:
I think this is a good move for the BQ, better, I suspect, than it was for the NDP. Prime Minister Trudeau is desperate (not too strong a word) for support for a few months while he tries to turn things around.

But it is a double edged sword for the Liberals: allying themselves with the BQ will look bad to many federalist voters, including many who are inclined to vote Liberal, and the BQ may gain support in Québec at the LPC's expense.
Click to expand...
The only thing is that Trudeau knew Singh was bluffing most of the time when push came to shove. He won’t have that luxury with the Bloc…
 
Edward Campbell said:
I think this is a good move for the BQ, better, I suspect, than it was for the NDP. Prime Minister Trudeau is desperate (not too strong a word) for support for a few months while he tries to turn things around.

But it is a double edged sword for the Liberals: allying themselves with the BQ will look bad to many federalist voters, including many who are inclined to vote Liberal, and the BQ may gain support in Québec at the LPC's expense.
Click to expand...
That will about finish the Liberals in Montreal and the Eastern Townships.

It is the political equivalent of eating your seed corn. It will get them through until Oct 25, but they are well and truly finished as a Federal Party after that. The political attack ads write themselves…for decades.
 
I remember the last time the Liberals tried to cobble together something with the Bloc under Dion.

Fail Tonight Show GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
ArmyRick said:
Article behind a pay wall
Click to expand...
Here it is::

----------​

The conservative defeat of carbon pricing is the defeat of economics – and of conservatism​

ANDREW COYNE
PUBLISHED YESTERDAY

“Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try.”

– Homer Simpson​

They are writing the obituaries already for the carbon tax. With the federal NDP signalling it may drop its support for the policy, and their provincial cousins in B.C. announcing they will scrap the province’s version of the tax if the feds scrap theirs, pricing greenhouse gas emissions has few friends these days.

The Conservative position, as near as anyone can make it out – that climate change should be fought, if at all, not by harnessing the power of the free market, but by central planning, a mix of command-and-control regulation and government subsidy – would appear instead to have won the day.

Fair enough, I suppose. That’s politics. It’s the tone of the obituaries I object to. The gist of most of the pieces I read was not sadness that the country should be about to toss aside a vastly superior policy for a vastly inferior policy, or anger at the blatant dishonesty of the campaign against it, but smirking cynicism at the very idea of anyone even attempting such a difficult political feat.

Silly Liberals. Couldn’t they have known that pricing carbon was a political loser? Sure, it might be the – pause for sneer – blackboard solution, the kind that out-of-touch eggheads and Laurentian elites favour, but out here in the real world folks don’t set much stock in blackboards.

It’s a version of what the journalism critic Jay Rosen calls the “church of the savvy.” More a pose than a stance, it disdains any attempt to score politicians on the merits of their differing proposals for fixing the problems facing society, but strictly according to how well they play the game.

Thus the Liberals are marked down for proposing a policy that, however superior as policy, was hard to explain to the public, while the Conservatives are congratulated, explicitly or otherwise, for shamelessly exploiting popular confusion around the tax.

How else to explain how Pierre Poilievre’s recent remarks that the tax, when fully implemented, would lead to a “nuclear winter” of “mass hunger and malnutrition,” a dystopian nightmare in which seniors are forced to turn their thermostats down to 13 C and people are left unable “to leave their homes or drive anywhere,” could have been reported straight-up, and not as lunatic hyperbole, wholly unworthy of a supposed prime-minister-in-waiting.

A quick refresher course in why the carbon tax is superior to the alternatives. Regulation only encourages people to do the minimum required to conform with the regulations. Subsidy often rewards them for doing things they were going to do anyway. Both only apply to the things that occur to the planners to regulate or subsidize.

Prices, by contrast, are a permanent, omnipresent incentive for businesses and households to reduce their emissions, by whatever means they find least costly – and to go on reducing their emissions for as long as the cost of doing so is less than the price.

How much more efficient is pricing carbon to the alternatives? Some years ago the Ecofiscal Commission, a group of environmental economists, estimated the economic costs of a carbon tax, sufficient to meet Canada’s internationally agreed emissions-reductions targets, at 0.05 per cent of GDP annually.

The costs of the regulation-first approach, by contrast, it put at up to 0.80 per cent of GDP: 16 times as much. At a time when growth is expected to average just 1.6 per cent, it’s huge.

Moreover, while the costs of the federal carbon tax, now in effect in eight provinces, are offset – more than offset, for 80 per cent of households – by federal rebates, no such rebates apply to the much greater costs of subsidies and regulations, though these are just as surely passed on to households.

So not only is the carbon tax more efficient than alternatives, but it is also more fair. Indeed, if we are so foolish as to scrap it, having already gone to the trouble and expense of implementing it, most households will be made worse off, since they lose more by eliminating the rebate than they gain from eliminating the tax.

At this the savvy political observer smiles indulgently. Yes, but you see, the very thing that makes the tax so efficient – that it exposes consumers to the costs of emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, costs that would otherwise be ignored (in the do-nothing option) or buried in the prices of things (under the regulatory option) – is also what makes it politically toxic.

People don’t like to have costs rubbed in their faces. Come to that, they don’t like to have facts rubbed in their faces. At the back of their minds, most know they’ll end up paying the costs either way. They’d just prefer not to have that made explicit. They’d rather be lied to. And the smart politician will give them what they want.

I don’t know whether the carbon tax was politically unsaleable or not. I do know the Liberals made a miserable job of it, first trying to off-load it on the provinces, then when that failed, phasing it in too gradually, thinking that consumers would not notice the tax but in fact ensuring that they did not notice the rebates.

Worse, while the tax was touted as a replacement for costlier subsidies and rebates, it was in fact layered on top of all of the existing programs, with more added after. All told, the carbon tax now accounts for just a third of total current and projected emissions reductions. If Liberals don’t believe in carbon pricing, the voter could be forgiven for thinking, why should I?

And of course, the pièce de résistance: last year’s carve-out for home heating oil, a brazen bit of pandering brought in for no purpose but to save Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada. It did so, however, at the cost of seeming to endorse the most often heard, and most dishonest, criticism of the tax: that it imposes an unbearable burden on low-income households, a position which can only be maintained by deliberately ignoring the rebates.

Would a better, smarter, more consistent approach to the tax have succeeded where the Liberals failed? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is the cost of caving to this kind of appalling cynicism. The cost will be measured not just in how much more we will have to pay to meet our emissions targets, or what it will do to our politics to so conspicuously reward lies and lunacy in place of facts and reason.

The cost I am thinking of, rather, is the cost to sound economic policy generally, and to the ability of our politics to deal with economic issues in any kind of serious way. The debate over carbon pricing, after all, is not fundamentally a debate about carbon: it’s about pricing. Its opponents do not suggest, publicly at least, that climate change is not a problem, or that emissions do not need to be reduced. Rather, they have trained their guns on the whole idea of pricing as a solution.

Yet prices are all around us. Prices are the basic unit of a market economy. They are what tell us whether to buy or sell. They encode information on the relative scarcity or abundance of things, not just at the final point of sale, but at every stage of production. Without them, our economy would cease to function.

All of the complaints that have been made against carbon pricing could be made about prices in general. They make everything more expensive. They impose a greater burden on the poor than they do on the rich. They constrain our freedom.

Prices are indeed the greatest instrument for subordinating individual wants and desires to the needs of the collective ever devised. For they rely on a force more binding than any bureaucratic diktat: the force of other people’s wants and desires. The supply and demand that together set prices, and that are in turn settled by them, are the voices of our fellow citizens. Prices oblige us to ration our use of the resources available to society, to leave more for others, whether we want to or not.

Yet for the most part prices operate without controversy. We know that wherever prices are not allowed to do their job of balancing supply and demand, the result is lineups, shortages, rationing and politicized allocation of resources, with all of its inefficiency, unfairness and potential for conflict. We know that the best way to help the poor is not by suppressing prices, but by giving the poor more money to pay them. And by and large that is what we do.

I say “for the most part” and “by and large.” The most obvious exceptions are things that, like carbon, have not previously been priced, but which it is now proposed should be: things like, for example, road space.

The instinctive opposition to road tolls is a classic case of what Milton Friedman called the “tyranny of the status quo.” Roads, we think, have always been free (they haven’t, but never mind); therefore they must be free. People already pay to park on the roads, without complaint. But suggest that they should pay to move on them – pay, that is, in money, rather than in the time we now spend idling in traffic – and watch them riot.

But occasionally controversy erupts over the prices of things already priced, as we now see over rents, or credit card rates, or – lordy – grocery prices. The medieval doctrine of the “fair” price continues to haunt us. And wherever such sentiments exist, there will be demagogues ready to exploit them, peddling price controls as the answer.

Once upon a time, conservatives saw it as part of their mission to make the case for prices, rather than politics – markets, rather than government – as the solutions to economic problems. Conservatives were indeed the original proponents of carbon pricing. Had they stuck with it, they might have been able to use carbon pricing as a springboard to talk about using prices, and markets, more generally. If you like what the market can do for cleaning up the environment, can I interest you in what it can do for your schools, or your health care?

But instead the right abandoned it, for no reason other than because the left had taken it up. For a time, this seemed like no more than a missed opportunity. But the conservative “victory” over carbon pricing now looks like something much worse: a defeat for pricing, period. Assuming there are any conservatives who still care.

----------​

There's a reason why Andrew Coyne is sometimes referred to as the. "leader of the economist party" by some of his fellow Ottawa pundits.
 
Andrew Coyne is not wrong.

Consumer Carbon pricing could have been made to work, except that the Liberals were too clever, by half.

The whole rebate thing was a mess; that Atlantic Canada carve out for heating oil a disaster.

What they should have done, right from the start, was implement the tax, but the revenues go to fund other energy efficiency schemes, not given back as “rebates”. As the Carbon tax rose, the GST could have been cut as compensation and eventually, carbon pricing would have completely replaced the GST. As Coyne notes, the Liberals also did not go in and clean up all of the other regulations and programs that consumer carbon pricing was supposed to have replaced, so we ended up with the worst of all worlds- Ottawa actively choking oil and gas industry through regulation (which guaranteed Alberta and Saskatchewan would fight them tooth and nail) and a carbon pricing scheme that offered a means tested “rebate” which smelled too much like a ponzi scheme. BC, at least, didn’t even pretend carbon taxes wouldn’t end up as general revenue, but that didn’t help in the end.

In the end, consumer carbon pricing disproportionately impacted rural and small town Canadians- the folks with no option to use transit and who often drove 200km just to buy groceries.

It was cynical of the CPC to campaign on it. There is not enough ink in the world to list all the times the Liberals have campaigned cynically and been patted on the back for it…
 
I should also like to add that it is much, much more difficult for a Conservative federal government in Canada to manage two back to back majorities, than it is for the Liberals. The natural floor for Liberal support is higher and the progressive vote will flow in their direction more easily than to the CPC.

Why is this important? It means that Conservatives, if they hope for a second term (and they might not) have to govern much more carefully towards the centre, whatever their campaign position actually is, than the Liberals do, because their core support is much more tenuous.
 
Andrew Coyne is by no means a dumb guy, especially when it comes to economics, but let’s hold his argumentation to the “test of the numbers,” shall we?

This is the only part of his case, I’ll address…the relative cost of policy vs consumption tax driven behavior modification:

Edward Campbell said:
How much more efficient is pricing carbon to the alternatives? Some years ago the Ecofiscal Commission, a group of environmental economists, estimated the economic costs of a carbon tax, sufficient to meet Canada’s internationally agreed emissions-reductions targets, at 0.05 per cent of GDP annually.

The costs of the regulation-first approach, by contrast, it put at up to 0.80 per cent of GDP: 16 times as much. At a time when growth is expected to average just 1.6 per cent, it’s huge.
Click to expand...

Economic costs of a carbon tax (sufficient to meet Canada’s internationally agreed emissions-reductions targets).

Okay, I’ll play.

0.05% of GDP annually, so says the Ecofiscal Commission. Got it.

Canada’s GDP in 2023: (ref)
  • $2.478T (Nominal)
  • $2.226T (PPP)

0.05% GDP cost of an effective carbon tax:
  • $1.24B (nominal)
  • $1.11B (PPP)

So, if Canada recovered the $15B of CERB overpayments it says its additional 5,000 CRA public servant hires ‘can’t find’, it could pay for 12-years (or 1/8 of a Century) to fund carbon reduction activities that actually reduce Canada’s carbon footprint?

We haven’t even got to the market-driven (consumer tax) vs policy/price-driven cost differential and it would seem that the Ecofiscal Commission’s figures make the case for the current government….errrr…not quite being accurate….by a factor of…15 (oddly close to EcoFiscal’s 16:1 policy:consumption tax argument)…

• Canada reports 2022 carbon rebate cost to operate - $82.6M
• EcoFiscal Commission’s ‘0.05%’ cost est. - $1.24B (1,240M)

1240 / 82.6 = 15(.01)

So who are we to believe about all this argumentation for how best to legislate/administer a carbon tax?

Do we take Andrew Coyne’s argument about save a 16:1 cost factor that supports the current government’s method?

Do we give Andrew Coyne a pass and avoid asking him why the current government is (?) underrepresenting its costs to administer the carbon rebate by a factor of 15?

Do we question whether the EcoFiscal Commission’s costs figures and ratios are correct? And if not, what does that mean for Andrew Coyne’s argument that the Liberals’ rebate is better than a policy-driven carbon price framework to reduce CO2 emissions?

I respect Coyne for the most part, he’s usually got pretty good insight and perspective, but he definitely formed a case of support of the existing carbon rebate based on some rather one-sided interpretation of a single organization’s assessment of carbon tax costs and effectiveness.

$0.02
 
Good2Golf said:
Andrew Coyne is by no means a dumb guy, especially when it comes to economics, but let’s hold his argumentation to the “test of the numbers,” shall we?

This is the only part of his case, I’ll address…the relative cost of policy vs consumption tax driven behavior modification:



Economic costs of a carbon tax (sufficient to meet Canada’s internationally agreed emissions-reductions targets).

Okay, I’ll play.

0.05% of GDP annually, so says the Ecofiscal Commission. Got it.

Canada’s GDP in 2023: (ref:)
  • $2.478T (Nominal)
  • $2.226T (PPP)

0.05% GDP cost of an effective carbon tax:
  • $1.24B (nominal)
  • $1.11B (PPP)

So, if Canada recovered the $15B of CERB overpayments it says its additional 5,000 CRA public servant hires ‘can’t find’, it could pay for 12-years (or 1/8 of a Century) to fund carbon reduction activities that actually reduce Canada’s carbon footprint?

We haven’t even got to the market-driven (consumer tax) vs policy/price-driven cost differential and it would seem that the Ecofiscal Commission’s figures make the case for the current government….errrr…not quite being accurate….by a factor of…15 (oddly close to EcoFiscal’s 16:1 policy:consumption tax argument)…

• Canada reports 2022 carbon rebate cost to operate - $82.6M
• EcoFiscal Commission’s ‘0.05%’ cost est. - $1.24B (1,240M)

1240 / 82.6 = 15(.01)

So who are we to believe about all this argumentation for how best to legislate/administer a carbon tax?

Do we take Andrew Coyne’s argument about save a 16:1 cost factor that supports the current government’s method?

Do we give Andrew Coyne a pass and avoid asking him why the current government is (?) underrepresenting its costs to administer the carbon rebate by a factor of 15?

Do we question whether the EcoFiscal Commission’s costs figures and ratios are correct? And if not, what does that mean for Andrew Coyne’s argument that the Liberals’ rebate is better than a policy-driven carbon price framework to reduce CO2 emissions?

I respect Coyne for the most part, he’s usually got pretty good insight and perspective, but he definitely formed a case of support of the existing carbon rebate based on some rather one-sided interpretation of a single organization’s assessment of carbon tax costs and effectiveness.

$0.02
Click to expand...

We are dealing with the same types of people who advocate for 'world government' style approaches to solving tough global issues so, of course, all numbers are suspect.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Andrew Coyne is not wrong.

Consumer Carbon pricing could have been made to work, except that the Liberals were too clever, by half.

The whole rebate thing was a mess; that Atlantic Canada carve out for heating oil a disaster.

What they should have done, right from the start, was implement the tax, but the revenues go to fund other energy efficiency schemes, not given back as “rebates”. As the Carbon tax rose, the GST could have been cut as compensation and eventually, carbon pricing would have completely replaced the GST. As Coyne notes, the Liberals also did not go in and clean up all of the other regulations and programs that consumer carbon pricing was supposed to have replaced, so we ended up with the worst of all worlds- Ottawa actively choking oil and gas industry through regulation (which guaranteed Alberta and Saskatchewan would fight them tooth and nail) and a carbon pricing scheme that offered a means tested “rebate” which smelled too much like a ponzi scheme. BC, at least, didn’t even pretend carbon taxes wouldn’t end up as general revenue, but that didn’t help in the end.

In the end, consumer carbon pricing disproportionately impacted rural and small town Canadians- the folks with no option to use transit and who often drove 200km just to buy groceries.

It was cynical of the CPC to campaign on it. There is not enough ink in the world to list all the times the Liberals have campaigned cynically and been patted on the back for it…
Click to expand...

If you want to play silly buggers with the economy than you can swap out standards.

We used to have The Gold Standard. We have also had The Silver Standard (Sterling). Those became monetary standards (UKP and USD).

There is a legitimate argument for a Carbon Standard (cost per kg of Carbon) (better that Gold - it is ubiquitous and everybody can access it).

There is also a legitimate argument for an Energy Standard (cost per Mega Joules).

Encourage people to buy low and sell high. Expend less energy to accumulate more wealth.

....

This would not be applying a tax regime. This would be revising the economic standard.
 
Kirkhill said:
If you want to play silly buggers with the economy than you can swap out standards.

We used to have The Gold Standard. We have also had The Silver Standard (Sterling). Those became monetary standards (UKP and USD).

There is a legitimate argument for a Carbon Standard (cost per kg of Carbon) (better that Gold - it is ubiquitous and everybody can access it).

There is also a legitimate argument for an Energy Standard (cost per Mega Joules).

Encourage people to buy low and sell high. Expend less energy to accumulate more wealth.

....

This would not be applying a tax regime. This would be revising the economic standard.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

But, the Liberals drank their own bath water and here we are.
 
Latest from Angus Reid:

46% are “fearful of CPC forming govt” (their words, not mine), 35% are hopeful, 54% say CPC has a hidden agenda.

More details in the link.

angusreid.org

CPC policy hypotheticals: Canadians see a balanced budget, longer jail time as ‘good’; defunding CBC as ‘bad’ -

Majority believe CPC has ‘hidden agenda’ it won’t reveal until the party is in office September 18, 2024 – The House of Commons returns from its summer break this week in a more precarious situation than it left, as the minority Liberals govern without the firm backstop of a supply and...
angusreid.org angusreid.org

I highlight that this question highlights the difference on voting against the current govt, versus voting for the current party in the lead. So while a majority of people want the LPC out, it doesn’t necessarily mean they want the CPC in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

daftandbarmy
Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)
281 282 283
Replies
6K
Views
970K
brihard
B
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
Replies
15
Views
37K
medicineman
medicineman
Rifleman62
  • Locked
"The Tables Turn in Russian Collusion Hunt"
Replies
1
Views
11K
mariomike
mariomike
a_majoor
How Trump’s ‘Maximum Pressure’ Strategy Got North Korea to the Table
Replies
0
Views
8K
a_majoor
a_majoor
cupper
U.S. Military Transgender Policy
4 5 6
Replies
110
Views
79K
Blackadder1916
Blackadder1916
Back
Top