More ill conceived Conservative economics
I’ve just arrived home after a two week holiday in New Brunswick (what a lovely province!) and Nova Scotia, sorted through the mail pile and found the latest Conservative bulk mailing. You know the ones, they come on a single 8.5 x 11 black and white sheet with some policy initiative or other outlined and a “Who is on the right track” question (Ignatieff, Harper, Layton or May) with an arrow pointing to Harper’s name of course. We seem to get one every week or so.
Of course, all of this is merely a means to compile the Conservatives electoral database and that’s fine as that’s the way the game is played, though I would strongly object if they were found financing this through MP’s budgets rather than party funds. Hmmm…
This latest mailing, though, states, “The Conservative government. Investing in airports. Investing in you.” and goes on to talk about the investments in airport security that the feds are making.
Well no one would object to being safer, of course, but I have to ask how often have you not felt safe on a flight from a Canadian airport? We had that Air India event, but that was quite a few years ago. And 911 not so long ago. Of course joining with the US and going round the world pissing people off will make enemies, so I guess it’s logical that we may be at some increased threat level from what used to be.
Frankly I feel far safer using air travel that driving in a car, particularly here in the GTA where we seem to license almost anyone who can see over the wheel and many who cannot, with no consideration of testing people on manual transmissions, no consideration of the differences in winter driving, no consideration of mandated snow tires, etc.
And half of this expenditure seems to be based on making air travel more efficient to “improve the passenger and freight air service experience.”
To what end? To decrease the hassle factor and thus increase people’s interest in traveling by air?
Where is the recognition from the Conservatives that air travel will seriously decline as a means of personal transport in years to come? Serious Climate Change policy would make this necessary, so I can understand why the Cons don’t mention this as many of them still don’t believe in it, and they still view such policies as a choice. Fair enough, even if I disagree. But Peak Oil will make the diminishing of air travel inevitable in the not too distant future, except for the super rich (and likely the politicians spending our money) so there is really no choice involved.
If you don’t believe me, reference what Jeff Rubin has to say about air travel. He lays out the case fairly well.
It’s astounding that the Conservative Party still manages to snow people into believing they are strong stewards of the economy, when they get so much of it wrong. They completely failed to predict the current recession even though many of us were saying as loudly as possible that it was coming. And they seem to be missing all the signs of economic upheaval that Peak Oil will bring.
Banking on the future of air travel is a flight of fancy.
Book Reviews, Economics, Energy, Environmental, Peak Oil, Transportation
Why has the Green Party of Canada switched it’s focus from environmental, health care (Clean air & water, etc)and other key issues – to getting rid of the Conservatives?
I was disapointed in the last election when we were told to vote for anyone other than Conservative and not to support the Green Party member.
Seems Elizabeth May’s only mandate is to get rid of Stephen Harper. That is not why I joined the Green Party.
Gail, I think you’re taking that statement a bit far. We have not switched focus as you suggest. I do, however, tend to agree with you that too much time is spent criticising other parties instead of explaining our policies and how we believe they are better. Part of that is (and I agree with you here) is that GPC candidates need to criticize less and focus on our policies more, and the other part is that the media, when they report what we say at all, reports our comments on others policies rather than explations of our vision. It’s a very tricky thing to be able to fit both into the required 30 second sound bytes.
As for the Conservatives being the main target of this, well, that just comes from the fact that they are in power while the others are not. The Liberals and NDP certainly also have policies worthy of criticizm and would be getting more of it if they were the party in power. The Conservatives also deserve extra criticism due to their laggard stance on meaningful Climate policy, although the Liberals are close to catching up to them (lagging equally with them??) since they gave Stephane Dion the boot and brought in Ignatieff. The Liberals would have us believe that meaningful Climate policy and unhindered tar sands development are somehow consistent. Total BS. At least the Conservatives are consistent in their approach to these two with “full steam ahead on oil & gas development” and “screw the climate cause we don’t really believe in it.”
On a further note, I’m critical of all parties and politicians, the Green Party included, where policies and programs are inconsistent with the realities of Peak Oil (triple digit oil prices and wild market fluctuations.) Realistic Climate policy is indeed a choice (ie we can choose an un-livable future for our children and hundreds of millions of climate refugees looking to migrate) but Peak Oil is not. It is a geological certainty. And we are failing to prepare for it at our peril.