# What Kind of Leader would Harper be?



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I am not saying that I am happy with any of the candidates, but look at how harper has come out of the gate:

Day 1 - Appeals to bigotry;
Day 2 - Appeals to selfishness (GST cut)

Even disregarding the widely held view (even in the right wing) that GST would be the wrong tax cut, I like to think that real leaders elevate us. I want a leader who makes Canadians want to be more generous, more open, more thoughtful, etc.

Any leader whose obvious emphasis is to capitalize on hate and greed shames us all. He is not fit to lead a country, a party or anything.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

How did we go from "GST over my dead body" to "GST would be the wrong tax cut". It hasn't even been that long and we all accept it as a part of everyday life. Sigh.

And, at present, I don't think he would be much of a leader. Not one that I would support anyway.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Can you imagine Harper on the international stage at some summit... people would think that Canada had been taken over by body-snatchers.

Of the leaders, I'd say Duceppe is the most charismatic, followed by Layton. Martin strikes me as a soul-less business type, and Harper is positively scary. I can laugh nervously at that sort of demeanour when the J.W.s show up on my doorstep, because nobody takes them seriously anyway, but in a politician, that brain-washed zombie-look is terrifying.

Cheers


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

The sad reality is that the GST is a tax that is hard for tax cheats to evade. Also, those who are advocating tax cuts say that income tax cuts would stimulate the economy, whereas GST would not. Bad policy on both counts.

That's not my point, though. 

Harper is appealing to our bad impulses, the dark side of human nature. Real leaders do the opposite.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Of the leaders, I'd say Duceppe is the most charismatic, followed by...


Duceppe gets a free ride. He has never been in power and never will be. Even his party has never been in power, and never will be.

It's a lot tougher to look good when you have a record that you have to defend.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

nxnw said:


> It's a lot tougher to look good when you have a record that you have to defend.


Sometimes it's just tough to look good, PERIOD.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Can you imagine Harper on the international stage at some summit... people would think that Canada had been taken over by body-snatchers.
> 
> Of the leaders, I'd say Duceppe is the most charismatic, followed by Layton. Martin strikes me as a soul-less business type, and Harper is positively scary. I can laugh nervously at that sort of demeanour when the J.W.s show up on my doorstep, because nobody takes them seriously anyway, but in a politician, that brain-washed zombie-look is terrifying.
> 
> Cheers


From the country that gave the world Jean Chretien, I don't think Canadians are that shallow to rule out a leader based on how handsome he looks on TV. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, the little guy from Shawinagan had polio as a child - hence the peculiar set look to his face. I dunno what Harper's excuse is. If he could only learn to smile, he'd pick up steam in this election. Smiles always look so dreadfully forced on the man. Hard to trust a man who looks like he's constipated or suffering an Ebola-style organ liquefaction episode.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> IDay 2 - Appeals to selfishness (GST cut)


This may be your political ideology, but it is far from true and such a view could be applied to any group asking for anything that helps them.

On leadership, I don't think he'd make a great leader, but no less so than our current options. He's not passionate except when angry, he has not stuck to his ideals as he got closer to power and he has that annoying smirk when he's trying to be polite about his anger. Sometimes leaders are built through strife, and I could see him becoming more 'leaderly'. He is fairly young for politics, and 4 years of real politics could change him.

All in all, no worse are better than the others. Even Chretien was at least somewhat of a ring-leader type, which is something. Mulroney was a great and passionate speaker.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'm going to catch some flak for saying this, but regarding Chretien as a leader--I liked his moxie. He had chutzpah.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

It has nothing to do with political ideology. First of all, conservative economists don't even agree with it. That's not even my point.

Even if it were a good policy, it is still a policy that appeals to greed and selfishness. How many days will have to pass before Harper discloses an initiative that appeals to our better nature?


----------



## mr.steevo (Jul 22, 2005)

Max said:


> Well, the little guy from Shawinagan had polio as a child - hence the peculiar set look to his face. I dunno what Harper's excuse is. If he could only learn to smile, he'd pick up steam in this election. Smiles always look so dreadfully forced on the man. Hard to trust a man who looks like he's constipated or suffering an Ebola-style organ liquefaction episode.



 

s.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I don't view Harper's GST tax cut of 1% as being "selfishness" unless he then cuts social programs helping the poor because of this smaller income from the GST tax. I would rather he cut the percentage someone can deduct on capital gains income or dividend income before he cuts the social safety net that is helping people survive day to day.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Max said:


> Well, the little guy from Shawinagan had polio as a child - hence the peculiar set look to his face. I dunno what Harper's excuse is. If he could only learn to smile, he'd pick up steam in this election. Smiles always look so dreadfully forced on the man. Hard to trust a man who looks like he's constipated or suffering an Ebola-style organ liquefaction episode.


If you like smiles, Jack Layton's your man. He almost has that infomercial perma-smile look. During the debate, I was waiting for him to pull the Vegi 2000 out from underneath the podium. That said, if I liked his ideas he'd get my vote. 

A lot of the critisim of Harper's looks make me think of the Maple Leaf chicken commercial where the boss picks his employee by poking him in the belly and giving him a smell. LOL!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

I'm not making my point. Even if it were good and reasonable policy to cut GST, it is a bribe. "Elect me and I will put cash in your pocket", he says, picking the tax that people see every day. The nature of the initiative appeals to baser instincts.

And, that's on the heels of the gay marriage position.

He just drags us down. I want a leader who makes us better.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Layton looks like a man who wants to sell me cheap plastic trinkets, pretending it's gold. He _does_ have confidence - that, or he's well versed at sending out vibes of synthetic confidence. Who knows with these guys?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

nxnw, I see the GST-cut as helping any and all who buy things. A tax rate cut helps only those who actually pay taxes. Thus, if Mr.G. was part of the working poor, and paid no taxes, a tax rate cut to this bracket would not help me, in that I am below the level that pays taxes. However, a tax rate cut to Dr.G. would be helpful to me. However, if this tax cut to Dr.G. is offset by cuts to social programs to Mr.G., or even lowering the level at which he is able to earn a minimum wage salary without tax implications, then I would not support the Harper tax cuts. I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative. I want to see my tax dollars going to help the people (e.g., health care, education, social benefits, etc), and the environment rather than helping people like me. 

Don't get me wrong, I am only at the highest tax bracket because of all of my extra teaching (a normal teaching load is five courses a year, and I teach 20), but I am not able to afford a vacation. Still, I have a good home, leasing two cars, a steady job with additional health care benefits, and plenty of food and clothing. Thus, by a modest standard, I am far more well off than a person who is on the edge of just getting by. I grew up being "one pay check from disaster", and my parents were too proud to go on relief (as it was called in the US back then). So, even though a tax break would be most appreciated by yours truly, I need it far less than Mr.G.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

nxnw said:


> The nature of the initiative appeals to baser instincts.


While personal choice over one's possessions and person is a basic desire, so is helping others, caring for those in need and many other things. Labelling this cut as appeals to baser instincts is a basic difference of ideology in collectivist policy approaches and individualist policy approaches, and which are seen as better for the nation. 

Again, that's ideology not fact. A very fundamental ideological divide, and one that has generate centuries of good and bad debate.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> nxnw, I see the GST-cut as helping any and all who buy things. A tax rate cut helps only those who actually pay taxes.


But the point is that it will not help. 
I'm surprised that you don't see it for what it is: a cheap bribe....


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

I'll take any reasonable bribe; I take cheques, cash and sexual favours... LOL

The GST is public, and it makes the best show piece to cover up the real problems we have. The same-sex legislation, and I mean no insult, is like the 'abortion' platform of the 70's and early 80's; nice and public and will incite people to fight each other and not pay proper attention to the real issues. You don't elect a person, only a party, and, one issue is not a platform nor is it reason to cast a vote.

If we pay attention to Layton's, Harper's, and alas, Martin's personality and political history then we can pick the lesser of these three evils.

---

Answering the topic's question... Harper is IMHO an idiot, no scratch that... Harper is our Diefenbaker, a man who sell us all out for personal gain and any power.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Can you imagine Harper on the international stage at some summit... people would think that Canada had been taken over by body-snatchers.
> 
> Of the leaders, I'd say Duceppe is the most charismatic, followed by Layton. Martin strikes me as a soul-less business type, and Harper is positively scary. I can laugh nervously at that sort of demeanour when the J.W.s show up on my doorstep, because nobody takes them seriously anyway, but in a politician, that brain-washed zombie-look is terrifying.
> 
> Cheers


That brain-washed zombie look is actually the look of a scared little boy who has too much power. Bush has the same look. I dare you... lokk into his eyes.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I'm going to catch some flak for saying this, but regarding Chretien as a leader--I liked his moxie. He had chutzpah.


Nothing like the "Shawinagan Handshake" if you are a protester in his way. 

I'd like to see how Bush would react to a screaming protester in his face. My guess is that he would just point in the general direction of where he wanted the air-strike.


----------



## bronzejolene (Jun 3, 2005)

"Answering the topic's question... Harper is IMHO an idiot, no scratch that... Harper is our Diefenbaker, a man who sell us all out for personal gain and any power."


Don't they all do this?

I remember the 93 election when Jean said he would cancel the 'Cadillac of Helicopter' orders. Never mind we needed them, people thought the Tories were paying to much and too friends. It cost us half a billion extra, and at least 12 years of using outdated equipment. 

Then there was the promise back then to ax the gst.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Harper skills assessment
Inexperienced. Shows poor choice of companions. 

want my real opinon???

We would be the laughingstock of the world.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

AS, yes, it is a cheap bribe, but one need not take the bribe. I am seeing too much disparity between those with wealth, those in the mythical middle class, and those who are considered the working poor, along with those who are in dire situations and must have the social safety net. Before I would vote for Harper, I would need to know his social agenda. If it is a form of "social Darwinism" I shall not vote for him. I would need to see from where the tax cuts are coming and what shall be cut, in that I don't see him wanting to run up a deficit. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Gr. G the GST rebate is NOT one that offers a lessening of the have/have not gap.

It does the opposite. It benefits the higher incomes far more than those with less discretionary income.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Dr.G. said:


> I am seeing too much disparity between those with wealth, those in the mythical middle class, and those who are considered the working poor, along with those who are in dire situations and must have the social safety net.


On this we agree.
But as MacDoc said, reducing the GST does not help the poor as much as you may think.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Nothing like the "Shawinagan Handshake" if you are a protester in his way.


Personally, I like the story about him preparing to defend himself against an intruder at 24 Sussex Drive with an Inuit carving before the RCMP got there.

Or after he retired from politics, when reporters asked what he thought of the election results--and his response was something like "I don't have to answer your questions. I'm not in politics anymore."


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Duceppe's position is that the GST should remain at 7% but be eliminated for certain items; food, children's clothing, drugs, etc.

Harper's across-the-board cut would help the poor less, and probably cost the treasury more. The lost revenue would either have to be made up elsewhere (program cuts, tax increases) or forgone (lower or no surpluses).

The program cuts he's not talking about, but you can be sure there will be some; it's the essence of Conservative economics. Since nearly everyone is suspicious of his motives and the things he doesn't say rather than what he does say, I would think another party would try to force him on the issue, perhaps at a debate.

If he insists he will simply forgo the revenue, that makes things like Defense spending or debt reduction difficult; although I'm not particularly happy at the rate the Liberals have been paying down the debt, at least they are paying it down.

You might think I'm a little crazy about the debt, but in the last 10 years I've personally paid more than $22,000 in income taxes directly to paying for the last Conservative Government we had in Saskatchewan (based on interest payments and debt reduction as a % of the budget x my tax bill) and there's still $ 8 Billion left to pay.

When elected, the province had a heritage fund similar to Alberta's, although not as large, and a surplus budget. It took the Tories less than 6 months to empty that and spend $ 4 billion more than they took in taxes; this despite the fact that they simply passed the NDP budget which they had presented but not passed, instead calling an election; a similar situation to what the Liberals are doing now.

Even though they passed the NDP budget unchanged (and it was a surplus budget) they simply spent by Order-In-Council, ignoring the budget they themselves passed.

In two terms they spent $ 20 Billion more than they took in by the standard Conservative methods of simultanteously spending more while cutting programs and taxes. That's over $ 50,000 per taxpayer, and half of it is still outstanding. They were so inept that the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan had to be disbanded. The same people are members of the Alliance, many of them sitting in Parliament when it was dissolved, and I'm not convinced they learned anything or intend to do anything different should they form a Federal Government.

Excuse my suspicions, but Mr. Harper will have to spell every little thing out to me before I'll consider trusting him and especially those around him, whom I remember all too well. After all, I still owe another $ 20,000 as my share of the provincial bill for the last time I enjoyed the Good Government of the Tories in the 1980's.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Mac Yak (Feb 7, 2005)

All those who think that Stephen Harper would make a worse PM than Paul Martin, raise your hands.

/raises both hands


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

You guys (and gals) are discussing the merits of the GST tax cut proposed by Harper.
What still sticks in my mind was a reporter's question on national TV a few days ago...something like "Mr Harper - do you love Canada?"
I was waiting for the obvious answer to what was almost a rhetorical question. I expected at least a simple "yes" or "yes I do", but what did I get?
"Canada is a nice place to live" or words to that effect.
Sounds like Mr. Harper lives elsewhere and just came for a casual visit.

As to the GST......I think what people hate is that the GST (and PST for that matter) is tacked onto the price, so you never pay what's on the price tag. Pretty much every country in the world has a VAT (Value-added-tax) that is often higher than the GST and PST combined, but it's just part of the price, same as the manufacturing cost and the various profit levels. If the price on the product was the price you paid, I think most Canadians would be happier - when we had the Federal Tax that was part of the price of the product, nobody complained about it - either you found the price acceptable or not and you based your buying decisions on that.

Happened to me a few times - I buy a bunch of items and the total is much higher than I expected, to the point where I thought the cashier made a mistake. But it's only the 15% tax (in Ontario) which on a big ticket item can add 100's of dollars to the price.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Strangely enough, one of the 'benefits' of the GST was transparency in that you see government's take instead of it being hidden. Bad politics, good policy.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

krs
Not sure if you remember, but Mulroney's conservatives wanted to blend the GST with the retail price. Business leaders balked and lobbied for it to be a separate, visible tax on top of what could then be lower advertised prices.

There is also a principle in taxation that taxes be fair, and visibility is an important part of fairness.

So, although some may agree with you, it's unlikely that will happen.

As unpopular as the GST is, it's a much lower rate than the FST and as a bonus, it's visible. That might sound strange, but it's the reason we're talking about it at all, and the reason the rate isn't moving up and down like the old FST used to, causing retail prices to mysteriously rise.

Wholesale cost of your washer + dryer:
1,400 x 33% markup = 1,862 + 7% GST (GST = 127.34) = $ 1992.34
Advertised price $ 1862.00; you pay $ 1992.34.
1,400 x 11% FST/14% FST = 1554/1596 (FST = $154~$196) x 33% markup = $ 2066.82/$ 2122.68
Advertised price $ 2066.82~2122.68; you pay $ 2066.82~2122.68

Meanwhile, the same washer & dryer in Detroit would be advertised at $ 1588 (same wholesale price, same markup, today's exchange rate) in both scenarios.

If you were a retailer, would you rather be in Windsor advertising $ 1862 or $ 2122 for the same item?
Which price do you think would encourage more people to travel to Michigan to buy it, even though it's actually the exact same wholesale price and retail markup in both countries ?
And as a retailer, would you rather have to borrow $ 1,400 or $ 1,596 to pay for your inventory?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> I don't view Harper's GST tax cut of 1% as being "selfishness" unless he then cuts social programs helping the poor because of this smaller income from the GST tax. I would rather he cut the percentage someone can deduct on capital gains income or dividend income before he cuts the social safety net that is helping people survive day to day.


Dr G

Cutting the GSt is a poor standalone policy. You quite rightly want to know what, if any, impact this may have on other programmes, especially for those on low inclomes.

For information on that, research the record of the Harris government in Ontario. Some tax cuts, but paid for partly by cutting social programmes and really cutting back on education. Harper will need every cent of the money lost through cutting the GST. He needs to tell us where he is going to get it - and if he hints at surpluses as the sourse, run a mile. These are unpredictable at best.

A lot of basic goods and services are already GST exempt. Cutting it will help those who can already afford some large GST bills. Most economists would prefer cuts to income tax for low and mid income Canadians to ease their burdens and maintain growth - which creates jobs.

Its like everything else from harper - cute sound bites withou any coherent policy or reasoning.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> I dunno what Harper's excuse is. If he could only learn to smile, he'd pick up steam in this election. Smiles always look so dreadfully forced on the man. Hard to trust a man who looks like he's constipated or suffering an Ebola-style organ liquefaction episode.


Oh look, here's an excuse to repost my PhotoShop job on Harper. 










The guy's creepy looking, so I just ramped it up a hair. I specifically focused on the creepy eyes and insincere smirk. 

Even without hearing a word out of his mouth, my gut tells me this man is dishonest. Better politicians can sometimes hide their insincerity, but Harpo isn't even a better politician.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

While I think there are probably better taxes to cut, I don't understand the fear people have with change.

I am willing to give the GST cut a try. If it doesn't work, we can always raise it again and cut some other taxes. 

The same mentality crosses into all other areas of political debate. We are terrified about making any changes to health care. Any suggestion for something new is usually met with a response that it will destroy health care. Why not try something different and see if it works? Try it in a limited way or in a limited area. Then we can have an intelligent and informed debate to see if we want to completely implement it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I am willing to give the GST cut a try. If it doesn't work, we can always raise it again and cut some other taxes.


This is EXACTLY why the current Cons and apparently their supporters sound so naive.

You are speaking of a massive change and cost to undertake and you just say "well we'll tinker". We'll try this, we'll try that.
It took a bloody long time to get the nation economically sound and while it needs cleaner more effective government it needs consistent thoughtful government as well.

It's the kind of immature and inexperienced attitude and approach that the current conservative party is just rife with. It shows time and time again.

At one time "gravitas" was the domain of the conservative world. Cautious, thoughtful, not quick to judgement. 
These days, "ludicrous" comes to mind far more readily.

The difference between Bill Davis and Stockwell Day.

Bill Davis would be elected in a heartbeat.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Although I don't agree with VanDave's suggestion (because we have a very good idea of the result of a 2% cut, no need to experiment) you really need to cool it MacDoc. When you're on, you have good points, when you're off you're a left-handed Nutt.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

gordguide said:


> krs
> Not sure if you remember, but Mulroney's conservatives wanted to blend the GST with the retail price. Business leaders balked and lobbied for it to be a separate, visible tax on top of what could then be lower advertised prices.


I honestly don't remember that the conservatives wanted to blend the GST into the price, but I know that even today, the merchant has the option to include the GST as part of the price - so I'm sure you are correct with your statement.
The whole idea if I remember was that the new price plus the GST was supposed to be equal to the old price with the 'hidden FST'.


> There is also a principle in taxation that taxes be fair, and visibility is an important part of fairness


I have heard that comment many times, but it doesn't make any sense to me. "Visibility" makes the tax fair? Of all of the industrialized nations, only Canada has come up with this concept, so only the Canadian GST is fair? Every other nation has VAT blended into the price - you pay what's on the price tag, nothing more.
Having a separate add-on GST actually creates a problem for the consumer. The GST does not apply to everything and I have often be charged GST for a service or by a merchant where no GST was due. But one never thinks about that when buying something, one always expects the GST to be added regardless. I only found out when one merchant charged me GST and the next one didn't for exactly the same items - that's when I went to the Government website to find out - actually sent an email in some cases because the rules aren't always straight forward.

I also don't find the GST as transparent as is made out to be. Yeah, on an idividual purchase you can look at the sales slip and it's right there, but you still have no clue how much GST you pay over the span of a year and what percentage of your income that really is.
Income tax I know to the penny; same with property tax; same with school tax; same with water tax, etc. For GST (and PST for that matter) I would need to add it all up myself.


> So, although some may agree with you, it's unlikely that will happen.


Can't argue about that one.


> Wholesale cost of your washer + dryer:
> 1,400 x 33% markup = 1,862 + 7% GST (GST = 127.34) = $ 1992.34
> Advertised price $ 1862.00; you pay $ 1992.34.
> 1,400 x 11% FST/14% FST = 1554/1596 (FST = $154~$196) x 33% markup = $ 2066.82/$ 2122.68
> Advertised price $ 2066.82~2122.68; you pay $ 2066.82~2122.68


Although I understand your points related to GST replacing the FST - I think your numbers are a bit off. The intent was that the new price of an item after the GST was added (in your example $1992.34) was supposed to equal the old price with the FST added at the manufacturer level.....nobody expected the $70 to $130 reduction in end price that you show - at least that's my recollection of the Conservative sales pitch at the time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Harper's Hidden Agenda - US Neo-conservatism*

I read an article yesterday in the BC online journal The Tyee that made some connections between Harper, his inner circle and the neo-conservatives surrounding the Bush administration. Harper, Bush Share Roots in Controversial Philosophy

What was particularly interesting to me was the mention of Leo Strauss, the man who is credited with spawning the neo-conservative movement and how his followers are connected to the Bush admin and to the “Calgary School” the so-called brain trust behind Harper and the Alberta conservatives. 

Although I suspect that his article makes a few too many unsubstantiated connections, I believe that where there is smoke, there is fire. If anything, the people mentioned don’t seem to be at odds with Strauss in any significant way. 

The author brought up Strauss’ idea of “the noble lie”, basically the contention that leaders need to lie to the public about their true intentions for the greater good. The lies leading up to Iraq war are a prime example of this philosophy in action, and were propagated by some of Strauss’ adherents within the Bush admin, the Project for a New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute.

Wanting to learn more about this I did some turning over of rocks on the internet and came across a quite long but very good article published in Walrus Magazine a little over a year ago. The Man Behind Stephen Harper. I highly recommend this article if you want to learn what makes Stephen Harper tick.

The article is on Tom Flanagan, the American academic who is the considered to be the leader of the Calgary School, who has been and will continue to be Harper’s campaign manager, as well as intellectual soul-mate and was responsible for engineering Harper’s rise to the leadership of the Conservative party. This guy is a dyed in the wool neo-con and has been the driving force behind much of the Reform Party’s policy from it’s early days through to it’s current manifestation as the Conservative Party.

Conservative insiders in this article state that Flanagan and Harper are of the same mind on policy issues and it’s interesting to note that when Harper has been asked this, regarding some of the more controversial issues, such as Flanagan’s insistence that native land claims are bogus and that native leaders should recognize they are just a conquered people and assimilate, Harper has been silent.

It is stated in the article that Flanagan is today no less of a neo-conservative firebrand than he ever was, just that he has become smarter about how to achieve his aims. It has been a hallmark of neo-conservative politicians that they don’t really come clean about how conservative their agenda really is, while they are running for office. Even in the US, Bush did this in 2000 and many saw little difference between what he was stating and Al Gore’s platform. Gordon Campbell in BC is an example of a conservative who did essentially the same thing, hiding and outright lying about the radical agenda he had in mind before gaining power.

The article on Flanagan ends with this:


> But back in Alberta, Ted Byfield, the unabashed voice of the West since the Calgary School's professors were pups, sees it another way – in terms Leo Strauss might have approved. "All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary – Flanagan most prominent among them," Byfield says. "I don't think he knows how to compromise. It's not in his genes. *The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we're moving to the left when we're not?"*
> 
> To those who are unnerved by that prospect, Byfield offers no cheer. "Those people who said they're dangerous – they're right!" he says. "People with ideas are dangerous. If Harper gets elected, he'll make a helluva change in this country." (emphasis mine)


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

" ... The intent was that the new price of an item after the GST was added (in your example $1992.34) was supposed to equal the old price with the FST ..."

I was in retail at the time; wholesale prices dropped significantly; more than GST added. However, I also remember most resellers used it as an opportunity to increase profits rather than drop prices an equal amount.

When wholesale prices rise or fall, resellers need to account for changes in input costs, so retail prices don't always move immediately and in step. For example, if I paid $ 100 for an item and need to sell it for $ 150, what happens when the wholesale cost rises to, say, $ 140 ? Some resellers will increase the retail price to reflect the new wholesale price, because they need to pay $ 140 to replace the unit they sell you. Others will sell at the old price and raise prices when inventory is replaced. Most people would prefer to deal with the latter, you would think.

But, what if there is a price drop (instead of rise) at wholesale? Now the first method of accounting is better for consumers; the retail price on existing inventory drops, since its cheaper to replace the good. Whatever pricing strategy an industry usually adopted determined if prices fell instantly or if it took a few months, but with the GST I remember most retailers tried to maintain profits, since gross sales were projected to fall along with costs, and that in itself hurt profits. A hundred widgets at $10 each is less gross income than 100 at $11 each. Thus, Mulroney told consumers the prices would fall "about the same" as the GST would add, because that's what his research and consulting told him would happen; business intended to take some of the difference in profits to offset a loss in gross revenue.

The FST used to move up and down but generally was in the range I used. In 1991 when the GST replaced it, it was 13.5% of the wholesale price.

For made-in-Canada goods it was difficult to know exactly how much in dollars FST added to the wholesale price (a manufacturer added it when he sold the goods, but deducted it as well for his input costs) but the theory was it was the same as imported goods. If you dealt with imported goods, say computers from Apple or cameras from Japan, it was straightforward: a flat % of the importer's wholesale cost.

If you get a chance somehow to compare retail prices of imported goods, say a certain japanese camera or hifi gear in perhaps 1985, and find a Canadian and US retail price listed for the same good, covert the currency as per the exchange rate at the time. I'm sure you will find much more than a 7% difference; 15% would be more like it. Do the same now, and with many items it is the same price once you account for currency. As things turned out in practice, it did take up to 2 years for the effect of the GST on wholesale prices to move through the economy, so I'm sure your recollection that prices changed about 7% is probably correct. But, had the price differences been transparent and exact, it would have been more.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> This is EXACTLY why the current Cons and apparently their supporters sound so naive.
> 
> You are speaking of a massive change and cost to undertake and you just say "well we'll tinker". We'll try this, we'll try that.
> It took a bloody long time to get the nation economically sound and while it needs cleaner more effective government it needs consistent thoughtful government as well.


A 1% change in tax!!! OMG... the country is going to fall apart. $200 per year. Yippy freeking skippy. I think I'll buy a couple tanks of gas with that.

Give your head a shake. 1% is peanuts. People will spend more money and the government will recoup a significant percentage of the lost revenue anyways.

This is the cheapest tax to change. The infrastruture is already in place for it. All you are changing is a number. Any other tax change is a lot more complicated. For example, when BC lowered the PST a half point, they announced it the night before it came into effect. Easy.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Gordon Campbell in BC is an example of a conservative who did essentially the same thing, hiding and outright lying about the radical agenda he had in mind before gaining power.:


Most lefties I have spoken with give Campbell credit for being honest about what he was going to do with the province. 

He pretty much did what he said he would do. He didn't need to be as detailed as he was because he was going to win no matter what. A lot of people were concerned that he said as much as he did.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bull**** Beej. 
The kind of immature and naive policies Harper espouses are symptomatic of WHY despite all the stars aligning in their favour for a change of government they have little traction and Vandave's comment is an accurate reflection of just that.

Their own party faithful are saying the same thing - why should I be less vocal.
There is a crying need for a moderate conservative national party and the CONS AIN'T IT.

Where in my comments is it that you think I need to "cool" or represents lack of realism? 

My assessment of the current Cons inexperience and lack of appeal is hardly fictional OR wishful thinking.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Keep adding the foolish comment. "Just a measly 1% or 2%"

GST accounts for 15% of the net revenue of the entire federal government and you are recommending that revenue stream be cut by 28% over two years....replacing it with.......?????

Provincial sales tax is a single end use tax - yep it's relatively easy to change but it still costs to do but it only gets collected from consumers at the end point of a sale.
GST is a pass through tax, very different and it's a major component of Federal government revenues - which somewhere has to be replaced.

Take GST OFF certain categories...sure - they did it with the cities, medicines, food and can do in other areas that require some fine tuning to achieve government goals.

As presented it's a naive and unrealistic election ploy .


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Bull**** Beej.


Good post! Your MacNutt impersonation is hilarious. I get the best laughs from that sort of stuff somedays :clap: A little sense, a teaspoon of rant, stir and simmer.

On the points, I too want a moderate conservative (progressive conservative for me) national party, but the current Conservatives don't have a lock on naive policy. The other parties seem very eager to be naive too; some more than others.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> GST accounts for 15% of the net revenue of the entire federal government and you are recommending that revenue stream by 28% over two years....replacing it with.......?????


Going by those numbers (28% of 15%) gives you less than 5%, which is roughly equal to one year of revenue growth in a modest growth year. Manageable but, as I've stated before, not the most effective choice policy-wise.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Most lefties I have spoken with give Campbell credit for being honest about what he was going to do with the province.
> 
> He pretty much did what he said he would do. He didn't need to be as detailed as he was because he was going to win no matter what. A lot of people were concerned that he said as much as he did.


LMOA! Oh man, where do I start? 

GC said he wouldn't privatize BC Rail or BC Hydro. Did

GC also didn't mention that he would privatize BC Ferries either. Did.

GC said his government would stop the expansion of gambling. Slots tripled.

GC said he didn't believe in ripping up collective agreements. Did.

GC promised to build 5000 long term beds. Didn't.

GC did not campaign on the massive tax pay-back he was to give to BC's top income earners within hours of winning in 2001. Did.

GC did not campaign on slashing the social safety net so severely that homelessness and poverty would increase massively during his tenure. Did.

GC did not campaign on increasing user fees to basically eat up all of the modest tax break that middle income earners saw and more, leaving them paying more in total than they did before. Did.

GC did not campaign on closing schools. Or hospitals. Did. Did.

GC did not campaign on bumping up the PST, then cynically dropping it down to try and win a by-election. Did.

GC did not tell us he would become a drunken party animal in Maui. Did, but then he never planned on getting caught.

Oh, I could go on and on, but this thread's about Stephen Harper, who will attempt the same sort of Machiavellian soft-sell during this election campaign. Look out for what he does if he ever gets near the PMO.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Umm nice try Beej - revenue growth does NOT equate to NET revenue available. Costs go up too. It's a big number and will simply need to be replaced from elsewhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> LMOA! Oh man, where do I start?
> 
> GC said he wouldn't privatize BC Rail or BC Hydro. Did


BC Hydro isn't privatised in the sense many consider the word. It is owned by the government, but run at armslength. A very good idea for this sort of thing, otherwise politicians always want to get their hands in there (eg VIA Rail).

A lot on that list was what he did that wasn't in the campaign and I don't think a campaign should define the most that could be done. Just keeping their word on what they did say would be a good start for most.

From an outsider's perspective, he ran as a fiscal conservative and delivered (tax cuts, balanced budget) and then got re-elected (with the more typical minority of votes).


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Umm nice try Beej - revenue growth does NOT equate to NET revenue available. Costs go up too. It's a big number and will simply need to be replaced from elsewhere.


The GST will raise about $30B this year of a total $200B for the feds, putting it at about 15% of revenues. 

The $200B grows about 5% per year and SOME costs grow automatically, usually at inflation (2%) or not at all like interest, and some grow faster. 

The Liberals have had to announce many new spending initiatives to eat up the growing revenue/expense gap. 5% of revenue is VERY manageable. More than that amount of money was handed out in the past 18 months (including a recent $5 billion tax cut announcement). It may be hard on top of Martin's spending/tax-cutting spree, but it is manageable. 

http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget05/bp/bpc7e.htm


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Economist assessment of Harper and party.



> It is not just the person and position of their present leader that holds the Conservatives back. They are a party divided, formed by a merger in 2003 between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance. These western roots may have tugged the merged party too far to the right to win a majority in a country where two out of three people tell pollsters that, if they could vote in American elections, they would vote Democrat rather than Republican. A party that is perceived to have strong religious influences, as the Western Alliance did, and a programme that is perceived as socially as well as economically conservative, as the Conservatives' is under Mr Harper, faces a daunting challenge.
> 
> Beyond ideology, which they could change, and a poor leader, whom they could sack, the Tories are plagued by a structural problem they may not be able to rectify. This is their chronic weakness in Quebec. The reasons for their unpopularity stretch back into history—not least to the conscription crisis of the first world war, when Quebeckers resented the Tories for trying to make them fight for the British crown. Brian Mulroney, it is true, delivered Quebec for the Conservatives in 1984 and 1988, but he enjoyed the advantage of being a Quebecker himself, who had formed a coalition with the province's nationalists. For a Quebecker to lead the Conservatives now that they depend so much on the west would be hard.
> 
> Worse still for the Tories, Mr Mulroney failed to make good on his promise to persuade the rest of Canada to recognise Quebec as a distinct society. This led to the collapse of the Conservative vote in the election of 1993 and the emergence of the Bloc Québécois, a federal counterpart of the Parti Québécois, now with 53 seats in Parliament. In federal elections, it is now the Bloc that scoops up anti-Liberal votes in Quebec. The Tories do not have a single seat in a province that contains a quarter of Canada's electorate. This puts a formidable obstacle in their path to power.


BTW I'd advise anyone interested to pick up this week's Economist.










It has a full survey on Canada as a nation. Many many pages of thoughtful and well structured commentary useful and sobering to us all. Pats on the back and cautions both in good measure.

a closing paragraph on one of the articles.



> Admiring economists at the OECD note that the sacrifices Canada made in the 1990s to put its finances in order have left it in the enviable position of being able to focus now on the longer-term impediments to growth.
> In Mr Martin, the architect of the previous reforms, it has a prime minister ideally placed to do this. *But for all his technocratic talents, Mr Martin has been bad at focusing on anything since becoming prime minister.* Such is the strength of its resource-boosted economy that Canada can still be relied on to do well. *But what a waste it would be if dysfunctional politics made it miss its chance to go for gold.*


only too true....


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Beej said:


> Going by those numbers (28% of 15%) gives you less than 5%, which is roughly equal to one year of revenue growth in a modest growth year. Manageable but, as I've stated before, not the most effective choice policy-wise.


And the first step is only half that amount (2.1% of revenue). The second % would happen many years later.

The point I made was that it isn't a huge percentage of the economy and it isn't going to sink us by making a change. When taxes are cut, people have more disposable income and spend more money. The government then collects on this extra spending as well.

I am not defending the policy. I already said earlier I think there are better taxes to cut right now. But, this isn't unreasonable, it is realistic, we can afford it and it is easy to implement.

Again, I ask the question, why are we so afraid of change?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> LMOA! Oh man, where do I start?
> 
> GC said he wouldn't privatize BC Rail or BC Hydro. Did


No and no. He only leased BC Rail corridors and BC Hydro is not a private company. It is managed privately to keep it away from politicians. That's good policy to me, rather than having the NDP raid funds before elections to buy off voters (e.g. ICBC).



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC also didn't mention that he would privatize BC Ferries either. Did.


Nope. Still a government owned company. Managed privately. I think things have improved with the Ferries. David Hahn has done a good job. I imagine that you use the ferries a lot and have seen a positive change.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC said his government would stop the expansion of gambling. Slots tripled.


True enough.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC said he didn't believe in ripping up collective agreements. Did.


Ya, but the vast majority of agreements were not ripped up. I didn't agree with doing that, but at the same time, if the NDP handed out unreasonable deals prior to the election, it doesn't bother me too much.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC promised to build 5000 long term beds. Didn't.


He admits this shortcoming and says he wants to fix it this term.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC did not campaign on the massive tax pay-back he was to give to BC's top income earners within hours of winning in 2001. Did.


He said he was going to cut taxes for everybody.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC did not campaign on slashing the social safety net so severely that homelessness and poverty would increase massively during his tenure. Did.


Poverty? Higher employment, less unemployment, stable wages. Homelessness did go up in Vancouver, but was it really a provincial issue? 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC did not campaign on increasing user fees to basically eat up all of the modest tax break that middle income earners saw and more, leaving them paying more in total than they did before. Did.


I think my tax cuts more than pay for user fees.

GC did not campaign on closing schools. Or hospitals. Did. Did.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC did not campaign on bumping up the PST, then cynically dropping it down to try and win a by-election. Did.


Fair enough, but at least they reduced it.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> GC did not tell us he would become a drunken party animal in Maui. Did, but then he never planned on getting caught.


Not relevant. It was a personal issue.

Conversely, had he been a union member drinking on the job causing a car accident, he would have gotten a promotion.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oh, I could go on and on, but this thread's about Stephen Harper, who will attempt the same sort of Machiavellian soft-sell during this election campaign. Look out for what he does if he ever gets near the PMO.


If they win more seats, it won't be a majority. He won't have this opportunity, not that I think it would be an issue in any case.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Again, I ask the question, why are we so afraid of change?


The Greens have the most radical tax policy, and I support it (more consumption tax, less income tax). 

If my only options are a GST cut or more of the breathless spending we've seen recently, then I'd prefer the GST cut. We'll see what the Liberals come up with at some point.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - the Liberals already tabled their proposal which was a combination of income tax cuts.....some signed into law already retroactive to Jan 2005....and corporate tax cuts....notably to address the income trust issue and put equities back into play.

A smart opposition that wanted to prove it could govern would have extended the parliamentary session and worked hard to bring its views into the changes and then said "Here is what else we would do" when the election was called.

The NDP started along that road then bailed despite the warning of Buzz Hargrove. Their reward, a call from Hargrove to his union supporters to vote Liberal where there is a chance of a split vote letting the Cons in. ( Oshawa notably )










Now



> The other parties seem very eager to be naive too; some more than others.


such as???.......

•••••••

You also avoided entirely my question as to what part of my post needed "cooling".

Ask Doug or IronMac sometime of exactly whose "question avoidance" pattern of repartee THAT reminds them of. Making a smart ass comeback with a nervous giggle and avoiding the direct question. 
You are making an unfortunate start at engendering the same distain Macnutt has earned, time and time again.

Passion and politics DO go together. One reason the topic gets regularly banned at dinner parties.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Arguing about tax cuts and how to achieve them at this point is makes no sense in my opinion. Tax cuts at this point only amount to buying votes in the simplistic and arcaic(?) way. Cutting the GST is regressive from a tax cut perspective, that has been proven by both ends of the political spectrum.

In a country where everyone bitches and moans about health care, education, the Armed Forces etc. I find it disturbing that anyone with a head on there shoulders is even arguing about this.

Tax cuts are bribes, plain and simple. Take the money, continue to pay down the debt, increase tranfers in Health and Education, and for gods sake, buy the good people in our military some new and decent hardware. When there is 20 kids in a class, and no waiting for basic and sometimes vital health care, I'll take that cut.

Until then, forget about it!


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

gordguide said:


> "
> If you get a chance somehow to compare retail prices of imported goods, say a certain japanese camera or hifi gear in perhaps 1985, and find a Canadian and US retail price listed for the same good, covert the currency as per the exchange rate at the time. I'm sure you will find much more than a 7% difference; 15% would be more like it. Do the same now, and with many items it is the same price once you account for currency. As things turned out in practice, it did take up to 2 years for the effect of the GST on wholesale prices to move through the economy, so I'm sure your recollection that prices changed about 7% is probably correct. But, had the price differences been transparent and exact, it would have been more.


Hi gg -

I actually do this all the time on big ticket items.
In general, I find the relationship between US and Canadian price on imported items is all over the map.
I buy a lot of gardenrailroad equipment that is manufactured in Germany. For that the price in Canada is always about 30% more than in the US (taking into account exchange and taxes). The Canadian retailers used to give me the story that they had to pay more for the product which turned out to be bs.
The German manufacturer has a subsiduary in the US - they confirmed a number of times that the price for any item was the same for US and Canadian dealers and they even covered the shipping and brokerage to the Canadian dealers.
It was simply that the Canadian dealer wanted a profit margin that was much higher than his US counterpart.
With Apple products, at least the Macs I looked at and bought, I was really pleased that the US and Canadian prices are identical. That wasn't true a few years back.
And I have bought imported video games where the US price was more than the Canadian price. It all relates to supply and demand and profit margin.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Keep adding the foolish comment. "Just a measly 1% or 2%"
> 
> GST accounts for 15% of the net revenue of the entire federal government and you are recommending that revenue stream be cut by 28% over two years....replacing it with.......?????


Why replace it with anything?
Isn't the argument that government revenues now far exceed expenditures - thus the surplus and therefore we can live with a lower revenue stream, ie a 6% GST.

BTW - Anyone ever wonder about the actual savings to the average family? I see numbers from $400.- per year all the way down to $265.- per year.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> You also avoided entirely my question as to what part of my post needed "cooling".
> 
> You are making an unfortunate start at engendering the same distain Macnutt has earned, time and time again.


As far as naive policies go, the NDP has kept themselves marginalized for decades through them, in my opinion. Kudos for generally sticking to their ideology though. The Liberal's whole approach to Kyoto is naive and/or duplicitous. This could go on for a while because people have very different views on what is best and that can blur how 'naive' is perceived.

As for you cooling it, are you still on about that? I dropped it, mildly humoursly in my opinion, to move on. I compare you to a Nutt and you compare me to one? Don't like smartass comments or my nervous giggle (what the hell is a nervous giggle in this format)? I was trying to be more polite than to drag this on some more, but here we go.

A quick answer: you repeatedly ratchet up discussions from passionate debate to name calling and ranting/badgering. Furthermore you seem to drop topics without stating you agree/disagree/admit being disproven/etc., but I assume that it just means there's nothing more productive to say because too many topics get bandied about here to always respond to every one. Maybe I should accuse you of 'question avoidance' every time this happens? No, that wouldn't be helpful. 

Didn't someone just get fed up with discussing something with you and respond quite directly about that? Do you not see how your posts respond to ideas (that you and others may disagree with) by jumping to more personal insults more often than others do? You're welcome to do this, just don't expect it to go unnoticed.

If I'm engendering disdain for rude commentary, I'd like to know so I can apologise and try to reduce it. If I'm engendering disdain for calling out people on verbal equivalents of this tptptptp , then so be it.

If you want to continue this, I suggest we do it privately so as not to bore (entertain?) everyone else. You're welcome to the last word, especially considering I started it.

[Edit: The recent incident I'm referring to is in the Harper/Math thread and was with Mugatu. You ratcheted up the discussion to insults and he got fed up with it.]


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

krs said:


> Why replace it with anything?
> Isn't the argument that government revenues now far exceed expenditures - thus the surplus and therefore we can live with a lower revenue stream, ie a 6% GST.


 Do you live day to day without a moment's thought for the future? Don't care how big the mortgage is on your house? Don't care if you have saved enough for retirement, because you have enough today to pay your food and rent?

Well, right now, Canada has a booming economy and very low interest rates. That's why there is a surplus TODAY. TODAY, we also have a huge debt, from deficit spending during years when the economy was worse and interest rates were high. When do you figure we pay the debt down, when the economy is back in decline?

Completely separate from the point I failed to make in starting this thread (i.e. Harper is the kind of "leader" who drags us to the gutter rather than elevating us), it shows how bankrupt conservative ideology is. 

You may not agree about spending money on reducing pollution or greenhouse gasses, or reducing poverty or improving healthcare;
Alternatively, you may truly believe that all of these things can be done cheaper and better by the John Roths and Conrad Blacks or even the Sam Waltons of this world;
But, is there any intellectual honesty in ignoring the future, in pocketing money now when we have an opportunity to pay down the debt?


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Beej wrote:
" ...
Nope. Still a government owned company. Managed privately. ..."

Beej, could you explain to me how they are structured? I don't understand the concept of "publicly owned, privately managed. "


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> Do you live day to day without a moment's thought for the future? Don't care how big the mortgage is on your house? Don't care if you have saved enough for retirement, because you have enough today to pay your food and rent?
> 
> Well, right now, Canada has a booming economy and very low interest rates. That's why there is a surplus TODAY. TODAY, we also have a huge debt, from deficit spending during years when the economy was worse and interest rates were high. When do you figure we pay the debt down, when the economy is back in decline?
> 
> ...


Is it that much of a stretch to think we can do both? The federal Liberals have cut income and corporate taxes in the last five years while reducing our debt to GDP ratio. It has also happened here in BC. The economy has turned around, we have a surplus, pay less tax and our debt to GDP ratio is dropping. Our bond ratings have improved. 

Seems like we have something that works here. We can afford a tax cut. But, we can't afford it if we start spending money like drunken sailor's (like the NDP would do).

The Conservatives/Reform have pushed the issue of debt reduction more than any party in the last 10 years. They would lose their support base if they started to run deficits.

As far as pollution and GHC go, of course the private sector is going to be in a better and more efficient position to facilitate reductions. They understand their own process and alternative processes. The role of government is to set the bar for everybody to meet.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> Beej wrote:
> " ...
> Nope. Still a government owned company. Managed privately. ..."
> 
> Beej, could you explain to me how they are structured? I don't understand the concept of "publicly owned, privately managed. "


Not sure about BC Hydro specifically, but the standard way to do this is for the government to pick the board of directors (ideally non-politically -- local business leaders, dean of a business school, etc.), who then direct the company and choose a CEO. 

It's not perfect, but it makes it much more difficult to interfere with politically while at the same time maintaining government ownership. The board, CEO and management know they have to make good profits, but not at the expense of embarrassing actions because government can fire them all, but would need a good cause because it would be so public. A balance, of sorts.

Again, not perfect but it captures a lot of the efficiency and innovation of the private sector while maintain government control but not management. And, in the end, profits go to government. I think this business model has a lot of potential to bridge the gap between political ideologies for some services.

The setting of power prices is still a problem, but for now B.C. has a separate regulator and a cost-based system in place, so BC Hydro has to apply and prove their need for charge $X like most utilities in the country need to.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You mean like Ontario Hydro board...who promptly proceded to line their own pockets. 

Without watchdog agencies..... which originally in some past age boards actually were supposed to be over management.....truly independent auditors and oversight committees a "private board" over a public company - ( I don't understand the concept either - I assume you mean a expert non political board ) really has no claim to automatically be better.
In many respects they are worse as it's not their own money - it's the publics.

History is rife with failures in this regard and also some outstanding successes like Truman's Dollar a Day Man initiative in WWII which in conjunction with his stern oversight produced marvels.

There is no simply panacea to get more effective use of tax dollars.

The country was an economic basketcase and due to Martin's management - and certainly offloading is a part of that is still falling out - there ARE some choices to be made in how the "rewards" are managed,

Staying the course with input from ALL parties, not radical change is what is called for in my mind and only the NDP showed some signs of that. 
Martin still wants to govern like a majority PM and I don't think that's in the cards nor do I personally want to see that.
I'd rather see real cooperation and governance not politic playing. 
Sans the cooperation I'll opt ofr a Lib majority just to get out of the current malaise.

I'd say a summary of a majority of voters core requirements - 
"What we as Canadians enjoy now but better managed and more transparent"

What Quebec voters want is another story.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> As far as pollution and GHC go, of course the private sector is going to be in a better and more efficient position to facilitate reductions. They understand their own process and alternative processes. The role of government is to set the bar for everybody to meet.


You're such a kidder. The federal gov't will say - OK tar sands! Cut your CO2 way down! And the oil companies and Klein will say, "let's roll up our sleeves and do it". 

Yeah, that's how it works.

In the meantime, the pulp and paper industry will just stop spewing poison into lakes and rivers, and not resist gov't efforts to regulate reduction, the car companies will gladly stop building trucks for middle aged women to drive to the mall.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> You're such a kidder. The federal gov't will say - OK tar sands! Cut your CO2 way down! And the oil companies and Klein will say, "let's roll up our sleeves and do it".
> 
> Yeah, that's how it works.
> 
> In the meantime, the pulp and paper industry will just stop spewing poison into lakes and rivers, and not resist gov't efforts to regulate reduction, the car companies will gladly stop building trucks for middle aged women to drive to the mall.


Obviously the government would also enforce the bars they set. If companies don't achieved them, they get fined.

Your impression of corporations with respect to the environment is wrong.

I work in the environmental consulting field. If you could sit in my shoes you would be surprised to see how much effort corporations make to be environmentally friendly. Nobody asks me to lie, show select data or do anything that twists the laws in any way. All the companies I deal with say, do whatever it takes to meet the regulations.

Many of the big oil companies you slag are often pro-active and do more than is required under the law.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If the taxes are implemented like the GST, the export impact would be minimal (no GST on exports). 

As far as a carbon tax goes, it could put certain products at a disadvantage, such as products that require a great deal of energy to produce. This complexity could be handled, and there are various approaches they could land on ranging from straight carbon tax ('we're not going to take it') to different taxes for specified industry investments to different tax rates for different industries. 

The current approach, which I have seen up close, does not work and uses the most resources to accomplish the least in reductions. The result is that our emissions continue to increase while the cost of discussions also continues to increase. No progress, lots of cost (in government and industry).


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Obviously the government would also enforce the bars they set. If companies don't achieved them, they get fined.
> 
> ...
> 
> Many of the big oil companies you slag are often pro-active and do more than is required under the law.


It's so easy! That's why my air is so pristine!

The big oil companies have whined, snivelled, lobbied and bullied governments for the last 20 years to keep the laws toothless. They have met their targets because the targets are a joke. They have not met the original legislated targets because they lobbied to have the targets extended.

As for you being an environmental consultant, I question whether you even know what one does, given your answer. I don't doubt that Esso will clean up contamination from one of their underground storage tanks. Unfortunately they also, legally, sell some of the filthiest gasoline in the world, right here in Ontario.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> It's so easy! That's why my air is so pristine!
> 
> The big oil companies have whined, snivelled, lobbied and bullied governments for the last 20 years to keep the laws toothless. They have met their targets because the targets are a joke. They have not met the original legislated targets because they lobbied to have the targets extended.
> 
> As for you being an environmental consultant, I question whether you even know what one does, given your answer. I don't doubt that Esso will clean up contamination from one of their underground storage tanks. Unfortunately they also, legally, sell some of the filthiest gasoline in the world, right here in Ontario.


So basically you agree with what I have said. They meet the regulations. If you want to debate what the regulations should be, then fine. We can have that discussion, but don't say they will just ignore regulations.

Why be so negative and critical of me? A lot of people spout on about stuff they have no clue about. I got roasted on the whole New Orleans thing. Everybody said it would be a toxic waste dump and that it couldn't be inhabited. Anyways, those people have been proven wrong.

And finally, don't assume I don't support environmental regulation. I do. You can't put everything on corporations. We are the ones who demand and require chemical products.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> You can't put everything on corporations. We are the ones who demand and require chemical products.


Sure, but there is a difference when said firm pollutes the environment to manufacture those chemicals....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> The Conservatives/Reform have pushed the issue of debt reduction more than any party in the last 10 years. They would lose their support base if they started to run deficits.


Seems to me that the Liberals have done a good job of this.
If I remember the Cons preach that but never implement it. Not that the CanCons are any different from the NeoCons in the US.... Ironic that a parties that preach debt reduction always seem to do to the opposite....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Seems to me that the Liberals have done a good job of this.
> If I remember the Cons preach that but never implement it. Not that the CanCons are any different from the NeoCons in the US.... Ironic that a parties that preach debt reduction always seem to do to the opposite....


From the Globe and Mail:

While the 3.6-per-cent margin of error for Thursday night's 750-respondent survey is larger than polls with bigger samples, the main results were unequivocal. About two-thirds of all respondents — 67 per cent — said they liked the tax cut. But only 28 per cent said it would influence how they vote.
...
Fifty per cent of respondents said Parliament should not hold a free vote on same-sex marriage, while 44 per cent wanted to revisit the issue.
...


The response to the GST isn't surprising. A campaign can't rest on it, but they could build on it because it still isn't clear how different they are from the Liberals on fiscal policy (too much 'me too' recently).

On same-sex marriage, the bill was just passed this year so the general sentiment is about as split as it was before. This is, in my opinion, a diminishing issue (regarding the 44% for revisiting) so I don't think much can be built on it. People will be less inclined to revisit it as time goes by.

Hopefully, by the time the first debates appear, the platforms will show some more interesting policies.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> So basically you agree with what I have said. They meet the regulations. If you want to debate what the regulations should be, then fine. We can have that discussion, but don't say they will just ignore regulations.
> ...
> And finally, don't assume I don't support environmental regulation. I do. You can't put everything on corporations. We are the ones who demand and require chemical products.


1. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. You are ignoring the key point. I have not said that big oil, for instance, ignores regulations. I have said that big oil has used its political clout to make sure the regulations and laws have easy targets. 

If the oil companies were the fine citizens you claim them to be, they wouldn't be selling us some of the filthiest, most sulphur laden gas in the world. This selfish, purely profit-driven behaviour causes untold numbers of deaths, and illness, and *causes significantly increased health care costs*. I don't need any laws to tell me that it's wrong to poison you. Sadly, industry not only needs such laws, but uses every method at their disposal to keep the laws toothless.

2. I don't think any of us demands that any company poison the the air or water in order to produce any product. Most, if not all of these products can be produced without doing so.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's not that people demand the environmental damage, it's that they won't pay to avoid it unless forced. 

I can't remember the survey, but a few years back a survey was done that identified a strong majority of people who want to protect the environment (no surprise) but when asked how much they would sacrifice it came out to less than $100 per year on average, if I remember correctly. 

Everything is important to everyone on these surveys (education, health care, environment, crime etc.) but when you start digging you don't see much commitment or priority beyond health care. The caustic nature of the health care debate is pushing aside debate and $ on much longer term and inter-generational issues.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Beej said:


> It's not that people demand the environmental damage, it's that they won't pay to avoid it unless forced.
> ...
> Everything is important to everyone on these surveys (education, health care, environment, crime etc.) but when you start digging you don't see much commitment or priority beyond health care...


Not unless forced, unless *inspired*. And what's your point anyway? We're all selfish ****s and our politicians should follow our lead? 
Which brings me back to my point - we don't need "leaders" like Harper who drag us into the gutter by appealing to greed and ignorance. I'd like a leader who could motivate us to say that it's worth a few bucks to not completely destroy the planet before our kids grow up.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

My point: Some forcing is going to be needed, but not command-and-control. Harness what people are to get the right thing done. One example is taxes on gasoline. 

Policies based on the assumption that people will be inspired to be different are shaky. Public education is a very long-term (and useful) policy, but on the way there we need a hell of a lot more. Plus public education is tricky, you don't want it to become political marketing.

Shameless vote buying, whether through tax cuts or spending initiatives is not leadership. A lefty would tend to be bought by a nice sounding spending package, and righty by tax cuts. In most cases, the devil is in the details.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

nxnw said:


> 1. I don't agree with you and you don't agree with me. You are ignoring the key point. I have not said that big oil, for instance, ignores regulations. I have said that big oil has used its political clout to make sure the regulations and laws have easy targets.


You said:

"You're such a kidder. The federal gov't will say - OK tar sands! Cut your CO2 way down! And the oil companies and Klein will say, "let's roll up our sleeves and do it". 

Yeah, that's how it works."

I interpreted that as you saying they would just ignore or skirt the law should the feds regulate CO2 emissions. I am telling you that in my own experience I see that corporations and oil companies want to meet their legal requirements and not ignore them. For some reason, you responded by insulting me. I'm confused????



nxnw said:


> 2. I don't think any of us demands that any company poison the the air or water in order to produce any product. Most, if not all of these products can be produced without doing so.




Sure, but the real question is what are you willing to pay for said product? Costs are ultimately paid by the end user.


----------



## nxnw (Dec 22, 2002)

Vandave said:


> I interpreted that as you saying they would just ignore or skirt the law should the feds regulate CO2 emissions. I am telling you that in my own experience I see that corporations and oil companies want to meet their legal requirements and not ignore them. For some reason, you responded by insulting me. I'm confused????


You're not confused at all, but pretty disingenuous, if you ask me. You edited out the response to your position:


> If the oil companies were the fine citizens you claim them to be, they wouldn't be selling us some of the filthiest, most sulphur laden gas in the world. This selfish, purely profit-driven behaviour causes untold numbers of deaths, and illness, and causes significantly increased health care costs. I don't need any laws to tell me that it's wrong to poison you. *Sadly, industry not only needs such laws, but uses every method at their disposal to keep the laws toothless.*


I have added emphasis in case you really missed it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Sure, but the real question is what are you willing to pay for said product? Costs are ultimately paid by the end user.


Or you can be cynical and say that society pays dearly for the product because of ill-health of some people caused by pollution.... and it cost society as a whole.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Costs are ultimately paid by the end user.


That's not true in many cases. There are many direct or indirect subsidies within various products including the energy that goes into making them, the infrastructure to transport them and the too often hidden long term environmental costs.

For instance the railways for the longest time suffered in trying to compete with trucks because they had to maintain their own right of way where as roads are maintained and built by gov.

We have a complex globalized world where simple approaches are inadequate. Tinker without thought in one aspect and have a major impact elsewhere.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> We have a complex globalized world where simple approaches are inadequate. Tinker without thought in one aspect and have a major impact elsewhere.


That's exactly what industry says when governments want to go in and blindly man-handle intricate regulations to respond to a sudden media interest.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Beej said:


> That's exactly what industry says when governments want to go in and blindly man-handle intricate regulations to respond to a sudden media interest.


Yep, like Kyoto for example.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Just as a reminder, please remember to attribute any sources that are quoted. If there is a possible link please give it, or if there is not please state so. Coupled with that don't quote the entire article, just quote the important parts.

So... carry on.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The mess I've seen with Kyoto would turn your hair white(r). The enormous time invested in accomplishing next to nothing from all stakeholders is not good for a cynical person to see. 

They should have s**t or got off the pot. If they believe in human induced climate change, carbon tax; if not, focus on pollutants. We got neither.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> That's exactly what industry says when governments want to go in and *blindly man-handle intricate regulations to respond to a sudden media interest*


For instance....specifically. Lots of generalized statements...little concrete.

For instance the joint commission for the Great Lakes has a pretty decent track record of study and good decisions made amongst a wide variety of stake holders. It's been around for 50 years
http://www.glc.org/about/

and I can visually see the progress whenever I visit home on Lake Erie.

I really wish the Climate change body could engender the same level of awareness of the problem and joint effort to solve it.

If nothing else Kyoto promotes awareness.....I'm sure the Great Lakes Commission had it's growing pains as well bringing ALL the parties in the process I'm sure took time.

Should the goals be abandoned in the first steps??


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> For instance....specifically. Lots of generalized statements...little concrete.
> 
> For instance the joint commission for the Great Lakes has a pretty decent track record of study and good decisions made amongst a wide variety of stake holders. It's been around for 50 years
> http://www.glc.org/about/
> ...


MacDoc: not sure what your post is in response to. I was pointing out how much your line sounds like the industry-type line when they see what government starts with. Nothing about the end result or abandoning goals (responding to someone else?). 

I'm not privy to the logic that connects our posts.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You are claiming government blindly mishandles intricate regulations in response to media interest.

I simply asked for a concrete example of that contention, and gave a specific example of an agency NOT blindly mishandling complex regulations and succeeding admirably over time.

You made the statement - I'm asking for an example.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Beej said:


> That's exactly what industry says when governments want to go in and blindly man-handle intricate regulations to respond to a sudden media interest.


I was talking about industry's approach. Note the wording: That's exactly what industry says...

The post is about what industry says. It is not talking about final...

Oh forget it. 

I'll quote the wise sage again:

Did you even read my last post? I give up. You are too pig headed to argue with.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

So defend your statement - you made it - are you offering a quote "from industry??" - if so whom and where.

It's "when governments want to go in and blindly man-handle intricate regulations to respond to a sudden media interest"

That's an observation about governments made by you. That's your observation, not a statement quote "from industry" - who or whatever that might be. 
If you can't or won't or want show an example to clarify your point that's fine - I was just asking for specifics on your observation as it's not my experience across the board tho indeed something like the east and West coast fishery management might be touted as prime examples of gov meddling.

I'm quite sure Kyoto has it's share of mismanaged initiatives and I would hope some successes.
Is Harper's policy to scrap Kyoto entirely?? - I've only seen some vague reports about a "different approach".

Will he take Canada out of the protocol?? 
Has some significance to his bid for leadership in my mind.


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Beej wrote:
"...
Not sure about BC Hydro specifically, but the standard way to do this is for the government to pick the board of directors (ideally non-politically -- local business leaders, dean of a business school, etc.), who then direct the company and choose a CEO. ..."

I don't understand the distinction. You've simply described any well managed Crown Corporation, and at least elsewhere in Canada we still consider them to be controlled by the legislature.

Don't BC Crowns have to file quarterly or annual reports to the legislature (and therefore make those reports public)? Don't they still have to raise capital via the Province (ie the Province must borrow on behalf of the Crown when it needs capital for it's business operations)? Certainly they are the most significant aspects which differentiate Crowns from Private and Public Corporations.

I don't understand what's so different about BC Hydro, BC Ferries, etc compared to any viable Crown in Canada (or the US for that matter; you could be describing the US Postal Service). Are Crowns so poorly run historically that BC residents consider the structure and behaviour you describe as somehow new or revolutionary?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Is Harper's policy to scrap Kyoto entirely?? - I've only seen some vague reports about a "different approach".


Dunno, sounds like he'll have a different  approach in a number of areas.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

gordguide said:


> Are Crowns so poorly run historically that BC residents consider the structure and behaviour you describe as somehow new or revolutionary?


In some ways, yes. BC Ferries is now managed privately and I have noticed many improvements. They listen to people now.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

The Doug said:


> Dunno, sounds like he'll have a different  approach in a number of areas.


Interesting articles; however, I find articles written in the tone and temper of those above only preach to those who believe in the ideals being expressed. Someone who is not entirely convinced of their merit will be put off by the use of grandious words to belittle their intended target (Harper in this case). Still interesting articles though.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

gordguide said:


> Beej wrote:
> I don't understand the distinction. You've simply described any well managed Crown Corporation, and at least elsewhere in Canada we still consider them to be controlled by the legislature.


There are differences in options to raise capital and more room to do things differently, such as joint ventures. Crown corporations can also work well, without government meddling and an armslength board. But the public owner private operation model has advantages, depending on how much free reign they are given. The line is grey between an independent Crown corporation and private management.

Some examples are, raising capital through their own bonds, without discussing with government. Entering equity joint ventures with other private companies, and competing in other jurisdictions on a more level playing field (more acceptable to other jurisdictions than a Crown corporation), especially as it relates to taxes and capital costs.

A well run Crown corporation can do great things, and a poorly set up private management firm can do poor things. The private structure makes it harder to interfere with so it has more potential, in my opinion. I'm not an expert in the accounting details by any means, but have seen the difference up close, anecdotally. Crown corps seem to work well with an armslength non-profit mandate, like the Bank of Canada. Private management is, by its nature, better designed to pursue profits efficiently.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> BC Ferries is now managed privately and I have noticed many improvements. They listen to people now.


Couldn't let this comment just lie there. 

...

( Edit: I took my response to a new thread Crown corps vs. privatization, for the reason of not wanting to further derail this thread.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> In fact, it does the opposite. It helps the people who pay the most GST.


And the people who pay the most GST would be the rich, no? 
Meaning that those that buy expensive items usually have the most disposable income and are usually rich. 
The poor are not helped by a reduction in the GST....


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*This is probably an old joke*

But I just heard it today, so I thought I'd pass it along:

A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender.
The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him,
"What's your IQ?"
The man replies "150" and the robot proceeds to make conversation about global warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biomimicry, environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nano-technology, and sexual proclivities.
The customer is very impressed and thinks, "This is really cool." He decides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, and comes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him the perfectly prepared drink and asks him, "What's your IQ?" 
The man responds, "about a 100."
Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football, NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favourite fast foods, guns, and women's breasts.
Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robot one *more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks, "What's your IQ?"
The man replies, "Er, 50, I think." Speaking very slowly, the robot says "So............... ya gonna vote for the Conservatives again?"



Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Oooh nasty  I just love it  :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Ownership is one thing - and the type of thing owned is very important. Strategic interests come into play.

Management is a different aspect.
Good management can be practiced or not by private or crown.....it's the goals that are often different.

A ferry service to a small community may well be undertaken by a crown corp with a goal of servicing ALL appropriate communities.
That service may be cut by a private concern whose goal is trying to maximize return to shareholders.

Ferry service is likely vital to tourist and other industries even to fire fighting etc. 
In my mind this kind of situation is best served by a combination of private finance and public ownership/direction.

So the private sector provides the capital at a return and the public interest is guided and served by the Crown Corp.

It really comes down to management and I question - especially at the Federal level - if the best managers are being sought and too much patronage instead ends up occurring. 

The change in 10 years of the LCBO is a case in point but that's an odd one as has high cashflow ( sin taxes n all ).

Something like a ferry service is a delicate balancing act between price/performance/service and strategic goal fulfillment.

Tokyo is interesting in that it has competing private suppliers for it's subway - some seven different companies and they vie for top honours in on time etc - but that's a different culture at work.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Oooh nasty  I just love it  :clap:


Old Joke....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Both leaders showed a little reason and the ability to discuss ideas...hopefully this will hold out for a bit longer.

Maybe subscription only.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051206.wsallo1206/BNStory/specialDecision2006/

...
Mr. Martin said Tuesday his Liberals would make government-financed childcare a permanent social program, suggesting that his approach is a basic policy difference with the Conservatives, but one based on principles.

Though Mr. Harper, the Conservative Leader, holds fundamentally different views on childcare--and a number of other issues--"This is not saying one person is a demon or not," Mr. Martin said.
...
Mr. Harper has in fact suggested there is a fundamental difference in principles in the approach of the two parties to government that can be seen in policies like childcare. He said Monday the Conservative childcare allowance leaves the choice up to parents as to how to send their own money on their children.
....


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Beej wrote:
" ... There are differences in options to raise capital and more room to do things differently, such as joint ventures. ..."

Beej, I completely understand the concept of private corporations, public corporations and Crown corporations. What I don't understand is what's so special about "publicly owned, privately managed". You've simply described a Crown corporation to me. Do you mean to say BC used to have Crowns run by flunkies right down to middle management?

Excuse my questions. I find it flabbergasting that BC residents would allow such mismanagement in the first place. Every Crown should be managed by an appointed board which chooses the managing executives. This is not special, or unusual, or even worthy of mention, usually.

'Private Management' cannot alter the fundamental aspects that make the Crown structure unique.

Beej wrote:
" ... Some examples are, raising capital through their own bonds, without discussing with government. ..."

Crowns Canada wide have always been able to raise capital through a bond issue. They can also raise capital directly via the legislature and the budget. What they can't do is raise capital any other way, like private and public corporations can.

I still don't see anything different in your description of BC Crowns, unless, and I hate to get back to this again, unless BC Crowns were accustomed to being run like wild children instead of responsible arms of public policy. Operating with a responsible board and professional management is not an option; it's mandatory with any Crown.

That's how other provinces and the federal government does it; I wasn't aware there was a special "BC-way" of running them before you discovered the "right way" out there. I can only see one reason why you would have them organized with a political appointee as executive management, so I will ask this final question:

Are the Crowns in BC, perchance, often found in the middle of an ideological battle; say, one party is constantly trying to get rid of them altogether while the other is constantly trying to rebuild what the other has torn asunder? Then it would make sense to politicize upper management by all parties likely to win an election, so that the ideology could be either advanced or resisted from within the organization itself.

But, it's a waste of time and money to do either; it simply prevents the Crown from doing the job it's mandated to perform, guaranteeing it's failure. No wonder they were in trouble; someone didn't actually want them to work in the first place.

Crowns can provide valuable service to the public, but if they are unwanted, they are doomed to failure and it's trivially easy to sabotage them if a government hates the idea they exist. Perhaps the people of BC should decide whether they want Crowns at all.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

1) Government interference in Crown's is not unusual. Canada Post, VIA Rail and more...it is easier and more likely, but not an inherent feature of the entity.

Politicians have difficulty resisting the urge. For example, they used to manipulate interest rates for elections (and did quite recently in the UK) but in Canada a precendent was established that the Finance minister can overrule the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but the Governor would then resign, causing embarrassment. Most Crowns don't have this sort of thing established.

2) Technically, government can be run every bit as efficiently as industry (it's just people and equipment providing a service and/or good), but realistically it usually doesn't happen because it's difficult to provide the right incentives, structure, speed of decision making, consistency and level of risk taking. Politics warps the work. 

So, although anything is possible, private management has advantages. Regulations (e.g. health and safety standards) that are enforced, clear and consistent are far more effective at maintaining social standards than handing everything over to government.

What is the advantage of Crown corporations?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> 1) Government interference in Crown's is not unusual. Canada Post, VIA Rail and more...it is easier and more likely, but not an inherent feature of the entity.
> 
> Politicians have difficulty resisting the urge. For example, they used to manipulate interest rates for elections (and did quite recently in the UK) but in Canada a precendent was established that the Finance minister can overrule the Governor of the Bank of Canada, but the Governor would then resign, causing embarrassment. Most Crowns don't have this sort of thing established.
> 
> ...


Same or similar discussion going on in the non-Harper thread Crown Corps vs. privatization. I'll give *my* answer to your question there.


----------



## Myrddin Emrys (May 24, 2005)

bronzejolene said:


> "Answering the topic's question... Harper is IMHO an idiot, no scratch that... Harper is our Diefenbaker, a man who sell us all out for personal gain and any power."
> 
> 
> Don't they all do this?


Yes, but Diefenbaker was the best example of selling the country out so far.


As for the $200 or so dollars a year.... we tip at the pub better than that; if we tipped the in kind we would not be let in the door.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> but if they are unwanted, they are doomed to failure and it's trivially easy to sabotage them if a government hates the idea they exist.


Toronto Harbour Commission comes to mind.  

SOME institutions really do need sunset clauses. :rolleyes
Yes this SHOULD be in the other thread .

••••

I see Harper is being consistent in in simple ideas - $1200 for every family poor or rich.  for childcare.

Why how.......Republican he sounds. Gee I can get subsidized housekeeping :clap:

I can afford to pay her but why not let the gov. Such a .....simple......idea.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Myrddin Emrys said:


> Yes, but Diefenbaker was the best example of selling the country out so far.


I'd put Mulroney in that example. The problem is that he, and the neo-cons that adore him, don't think what he did was 'selling-out' somuch as 'buying-in'. 

Cheers


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I'd put Mulroney in that example. The problem is that he, and the neo-cons that adore him, don't think what he did was 'selling-out' somuch as 'buying-in'.
> 
> Cheers


Yep, he left us with a mess, and to be honest, I can't see Harper doing anything great either. Until he is gone, the Conservative Party is dead in the water.


----------

