Jump to content

      



























Photo

Christy Clark - BC Premier


  • Please log in to reply
320 replies to this topic

#61 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 07 March 2011 - 07:32 PM

^ You mean I can forget about getting a cheque? :)
They are not still working on it?

#62 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 07 March 2011 - 08:22 PM

Actually it can not because each vote is connect to a unique identifier, it would be really obvious if it happened at all.


Generating extra vots is only one way of interfering with the process electronically, blocking people from voting by either generating bogus requests to block out specific id's and/or overflowing the system with traffic during specific times can be just as effective.

#63 Schnook

Schnook
  • Member
  • 202 posts

Posted 09 March 2011 - 05:49 PM

^ Perhaps they are factoring in the manpower that it takes to decide who gets a cheque and for how much. It could have been a little like the gun registry.

Somebody had to program the computer to decide not to mail me a cheque.

I heard it was a real mess, very expensive. The bit about mis-mailings is a matter of public record. Some amusing anecdotes came up in local papers.

#64 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 09 March 2011 - 05:55 PM

I heard it was a real mess, very expensive. The bit about mis-mailings is a matter of public record. Some amusing anecdotes came up in local papers.


Share an anecdote or two with us Schnook. Did some parrot get my cheque? :)

#65 Schnook

Schnook
  • Member
  • 202 posts

Posted 10 March 2011 - 09:52 PM

What I heard was hearsay - I only remember the gist - but here's a relevant piece from the TC:

18,000 told to return $100 climate cheques (12-Sep-2008)

The province sent about 18,000 "climate action dividend" $100 cheques to people who weren't eligible for them, a government source has confirmed.


Here's the original media release:

Distribution of the Climate Action Dividend (24-Jun-2008)

The suggestion that "the Climate Action Dividend will help British Columbians choose their own paths to a lower-carbon lifestyle" is silly and disingenuous, like the "revenue neutral" claim. A tax is a tax. A lot of people bought gasoline, so got taxed again.

I don't remember any subsequent followup or reporting re: cheque distribution. The number quoted might have been / probably was an arbitrary estimate for convenience. A true cost-benefit analysis including staff time might be instructive.

#66 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 11 March 2011 - 06:53 AM

Thanks for that.

#67 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 11 March 2011 - 08:59 AM

What I heard was hearsay - I only remember the gist - but here's a relevant piece from the TC:

18,000 told to return $100 climate cheques (12-Sep-2008)


Here's the original media release:

Distribution of the Climate Action Dividend (24-Jun-2008)

The suggestion that "the Climate Action Dividend will help British Columbians choose their own paths to a lower-carbon lifestyle" is silly and disingenuous, like the "revenue neutral" claim. A tax is a tax. A lot of people bought gasoline, so got taxed again.

I don't remember any subsequent followup or reporting re: cheque distribution. The number quoted might have been / probably was an arbitrary estimate for convenience. A true cost-benefit analysis including staff time might be instructive.


A tax is not a tax. There are many different types of tax. The carbon tax is a consumption tax so the public and business has some control over the amount of the tax paid. While I know that not all areas of the province have the same ability to offset the tax generally there are other options to reduce the amount you pay.

#68 Schnook

Schnook
  • Member
  • 202 posts

Posted 14 March 2011 - 05:38 PM

A tax is not a tax. There are many different types of tax. The carbon tax is a consumption tax so the public and business has some control over the amount of the tax paid. While I know that not all areas of the province have the same ability to offset the tax generally there are other options to reduce the amount you pay.

Ah, I see. I might as well have called a Mallard a Pintail.

If it creates government revenue by punishing real economic activity, it's a tax. :rolleyes:

#69 jklymak

jklymak
  • Member
  • 3,514 posts

Posted 14 March 2011 - 06:53 PM

^ Thats not a very nuanced view. An income tax is very different from a consumption tax. If we can agree that government needs to collect X$, it is still a valid question as to how they will go about doing that. Just saying "its a tax, therefore its bad" is not helpful.

If it is truly revenue neutral, a carbon tax will change whose economic activity is taxed, but it won't change the overall "burden" on the economy. Companies and individuals that can use less carbon will benefit, those who can't will pay more. Given the unrecouped costs to society of climate change, I think that is entirely appropriate. There may be some short term dislocation, but I also bet it will put our economy on a more solid footing 10 or 15 years down the line.

#70 yodsaker

yodsaker
  • Member
  • 1,280 posts

Posted 14 March 2011 - 06:57 PM

Idle Chong still at the big trough.
Damn!

#71 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 40,410 posts

Posted 14 March 2011 - 07:34 PM

The philosophy behind Ms. Clark's new cabinet: keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. :rolleyes:

#72 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 15 March 2011 - 05:30 AM

The philosophy behind Ms. Clark's new cabinet: keep your friends close but keep your enemies closer. :rolleyes:


Smart move making Falcon Minister of Finance. She is making sure that he will be so despised by the time the next leadership convention comes along that he will be neutered!

#73 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 15 March 2011 - 07:59 AM

I just had a dream Christy Clark was demonstrating various types of energy-efficient household appliances, explaining how their cost savings would offset the effect of the HST. Like they say, I guess I should check with my doctor about any unusual side effects of my medication.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#74 Schnook

Schnook
  • Member
  • 202 posts

Posted 31 March 2011 - 05:40 PM

Companies and individuals that can use less carbon will benefit, those who can't will pay more. Given the unrecouped costs to society of climate change, I think that is entirely appropriate. There may be some short term dislocation, but I also bet it will put our economy on a more solid footing 10 or 15 years down the line.

Canadians pay too much tax for too much government. The prevailing attitude seems to be that we need bureaucracy to "govern" every aspect of our lives. Something comes up: "What's Government going to do about it?"

Our key difference with respect to "Carbon Tax" is that you accept it. It's a rehash of the Medieval Catholic Indulgence: the Authority determines the amount that you must pay, commensurate with Its measure of your Sin. It will be defeated eventually - markets always repair imbalances - but in the meantime, we "indulge" shysters while the public is distracted with HST "controversy."

#75 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:52 PM

Perhaps we should start a new thread called "Government Waste"

Here is a story about millions of dollars being paid to government staffers because of a change in leadership.

http://www.timescolo...3579/story.html


What ever happened to "two weeks notice" ?

#76 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:21 PM

Perhaps we should start a new thread called "Government Waste"


No, it'll blow up Mike's servers!

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#77 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 10:17 PM

I need a little help with a political dilemma. It is no secret that my political beliefs lean a little right of center, but I am struggling with the participation of our Premier in the Point Grey by-election this Wednesday. She refuses to attend “all candidates” meetings with the excuse that she is too busy running the province, and can reach more voters via telephone “town hall” meetings.

At first glance this may seem valid, but my stomach tells me otherwise.

Although it may be true that all candidate meetings may not allow a lot of voters to view firsthand the interaction between candidates and the electorate, but there are usually newspaper reporters and visual media present that relay the atmosphere and the details of a meeting in the morning news for all to read and watch. We have over the years relied on such reporting. There is a triangulation if it were, between a room full of astute political beings that can provide insight into the candidates’ personalities, demeanor, and sense of purpose that may not be able to be reproduced electronically.

Apparently a telephone call is initiated the day of an electronic meeting asking the voter if they would like to attend. I am assuming that if the correct button is pushed the voter is then given instructions as to how to listen in and even participate. That may appear to be somewhat convenient, but there are inherent problems with this type of campaigning.

First of all you will only be able to listen to one candidate’s opinions. What about the other voters that live in the household? If you only have one telephone, how does your spouse or grown children participate? What if you are not at home when the phone rings?

Our unelected Premier is required to represent a riding in order to speak in person in the Legislature. Some might be of the belief that a prerequisite would be that she speak to the constituents, in person, first.

#78 Rob Randall

Rob Randall
  • Member
  • 16,310 posts

Posted 09 May 2011 - 10:25 PM

I am a fan of the telephone town hall, but not as a substitute for traditional forms of public interaction.

#79 sebberry

sebberry

    Resident Housekeeper

  • Moderator
  • 21,503 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 09 May 2011 - 10:27 PM

If you had as much damage control to take on as she did, would you want to be grilled at an "all candidates debate"?

Harper lied through his teeth at the federal debates, yet he's now the Prime Minister with a majority. While I think many important issues may be discussed, I think such debates/meetings would be too dangerous for the Liberals. She can't risk having Campbell's crap brought up.

I'd say she can run a more effective campaign by hitting the streets, shaking babies and kissing hands or however it works.

But that's just me, and I'm the last one who should be consulted with when it comes to political matters :P

Victoria current weather by neighbourhood: Victoria school-based weather station network

Victoria webcams: Big Wave Dave Webcams

 


#80 http

http

    Data Sans Practicality

  • Member
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 10 May 2011 - 10:06 AM

[ snip snip snip ] First of all you will only be able to listen to one candidate’s opinions. What about the other voters that live in the household? If you only have one telephone, how does your spouse or grown children participate? What if you are not at home when the phone rings?

Our unelected Premier is required to represent a riding in order to speak in person in the Legislature. Some might be of the belief that a prerequisite would be that she speak to the constituents, in person, first.


Oh, so you're seeing the problem with this, too. Ask yourself this: what category of people will be included in this?

The federal Conservatives took a similar approach: don't engage at all in the arena unless you're certain to win. Candidates frequently declined attending all-candidate meetings in ridings with strong, credible opponents; one person I know suggested it may be an actual party policy. If I were party brass focused on winning campaigns (and not open, informed debate of the topics), it's what I'd do. Never battle on uneven terrain!
"Who are those slashdot people? They swept over like Mongol-Tartars." - F. E. Vladimirovna

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users