Or as I was raised to call it, lying you f**king ass off.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tory-carbon-tax-campaign-agai...
I've never seen such contempt for Canadian in my life. I see this blowing up in the Tories faces, this is not good tactics, especially long term when thier crediblity will be shot to hell.
Am I the only one who sees an up this as well. This will polorize the electorate and more polarized the electorate gets, the better the NDP does.
Did George W Bush tell truths or lies?
IF you say a lie enough times, people will believe it.
Its a tactic, and sometimes it works really well.
A lie has to be plausible to be believed.
I think this has the ability to succeed, or be countered and neutralized.
Either way it uses up the oppositions time and puts the opposition on the defensive over a bunch of fabrications.
Bush is also the most unpopular president in American History.
Also at the time, before the invasion, it was at least possible he might have wmd, the people at home had no way to know.
Here we have a situtation where even hostile media is calling the Tories on thier bullshit and pointing out the dishonesty and hypocracy.
For this tactic to work thier has to be uncertainty, it can't be black and white and straight forwardly confirmable. I mean these are well documented, this isn't messaging the facts to create false impression, its something that can basically be fact checked.
It get around what the Tories are doing, Canadians may not be the brightest people, but were smarter then this.
Plus those voting NDP or swing voters are the ones least likely to buy it, the likely effect is to pissed them off, which means more people switching to the NDP and a boost to fundraising for NDP.
Polarization works to the NDPs benifit. Remember way more people dispise the Tories then the NDP so when pushed into a Polarized enviroment the NDP will draw strongly from the antitory voters. Polarization is also good for fundraising look at the Romney/Obama dynamic and the cash that generates.
The opposition ought to run a series of ads on the government lying -- give some well chosen examples and reinforce this. This is the one message that has not been thrown back solidly enough. And the nice part is this is not defence-- this is branding them. It would be a classic back-fire.
The Lying Brian moniker helped reduce him and his gang of thieves to a rump in the House. History could repeat itself.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/case-of-the-conservatives-carbon...
I found his comparison between the NDP cap and trade proposal and the Tories regulations and spending interesting, its a perpective that,would never have occurred to me.
Cap and Trade as free market solution vs. Regulations/spending as socialist governmental interventionism is a bit of role reversal, and I the irony funny.
Of course one does not proclude the other.
The other point is that a tax has the government pulling the money out of the private sector while the cap and trade just moves it around. It is not a tax because it does not cost the private sector as a whole anything -- one business pays another. Very few are pointing out just how significant a different that is.
The analysis that the consumer pays is also suspect because those who innovate make money off the deal and can lower prices as a result. In many cases the extra investments drive down future costs.
The government would generate revenue of cap and trade. In fact Mulcair made it clear it would during the leadership race race.
First off the NDP is more likely to sell permits then simply allocate them, generating revenue for Government. Secondly trading permits between companies would be subject to normal taxation like the HST.
It still isn't a carbon tax. In the case of selling permits its selling a product, tradable permits, which are stand ins for cubic space in the atmosphere that companies dump carbons and other crap into.
I'm hoping that once we show the success of this model, we can expand into other areas.
How about cap and trade for water pollution, habitat loss, social housing, maybe other stuff too.
I love how Dan wrote this column, it had me lmao. His frustration with the Harper government inspite of sharing some idealogy is paletable.
http://www.canada.com/life/parrot%2Bjust%2Bresting/7275471/story.html
This is extremely interesting and detailed on this issue.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/21/a-rough-guide-to-the-conservatives-ca...
The the wiki entry for those who wish to know more about cap and trade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Cap-and-trade_versus_carb...
Sellery sums things up on this issue and others. The part on BC and Weed is interesting as well as is the Mckay part.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/search/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpos...
Another irony, the Tories own,sequenting research funding requires cap and trade to work and thier regulations, such as on coal with cost alot too. Cost the will be pasted onto the consumer. Only the Tories have no plan to help income Canadians cope.
Example given was coal, the Tories regs will end up with 16 billion in costs. Which is more then Liberals did to fight climate change while in office. Seriously carbon emissions have already gone done during Harper's administeration. Much of that was do to provinces and the economic crisis, but still this should shame the Liberals to thier core.
If Harper can do it, a frucking trained monkey could do it and the Liberals failed. Were talking about the jerk who dumped Kyoto and messing up internation climate change and Dion was still worse in practical terms.
Stephen Dion should fall on his metaphorical sword in dishonor and resign as the disgrace he is.
