i've been leading up to this for a while, so it should be of little surprise. the force of which i'm doing so may, however, take some people off guard.

with careful consideration and much dismay, i need to endorse the liberal party. actively. and almost - i said almost - enthusiastically.

it's largely a reflection on the ndp, which i'm seeing in a very poor light over this election. the ndp leadership under mulcair has systematically eliminated any reason i had previously seen them as superior to the liberals. the few traditionally left-leaning things that are left, like child care, are of rather low importance and largely infeasible, anyways.

there's a number of things that i like about the liberals better if you line them up, but the reason i'm almost - i said almost - enthusiastic is the shift to sustainable manufacturing, which the ndp do not seem to have any interest in.

a few days ago, naomi klein & maude barlow set up a press conference where they put together a 15-point declaration that they expected the next government to adopt. now, my politics are certainly closer to those of naomi klein or maude barlow - without question. but, if you read the list the obvious conclusion is that it's a summary of the green platform, in an attempt to galvanize left-leaning ndp voters that are understandably drifting elsewhere. i understand why they felt the need to do this, and they're absolutely right that they needed to do this - but it's far too little and far too late. the media made the obvious maoist connotation and wrote them off as distracting from the ndp's centralizing messaging; mulcair said something like "they don't speak for the party", and in the process essentially disowned them. the media was almost solely interested in costing a vague 15-point plan that by nature cannot be costed.

it is clear that the ndp leadership will not act as anything better than a hurdle in adopting the points in the manifesto. but, voting for the greens isn't going to accomplish anything, either.

shortly afterwards, the ndp released a "budgetary framework" document with oil at $67. this of course stays within the ndp's existing narrative of obsession with fiscal conservatism. worse, it tips it's hat on the importance of oil revenue to the government. everything that the ndp has been promising has been constructed with the intent to maximize oil revenue. this just cements the irrelevance of the klein/barlow clique in the new ndp. the new ndp wants to encourage dirty industry, tax it and redistribute the proceeds. in some sense, this is traditional socialism - but it's best before date was about 30 years ago. well, it's a party run by people on the brink of retirement.

this isn't the first time in the history of the world where liberals seem like a better choice than nominal socialists, however liberal or however nominal - and in canada the liberals are very liberal, and the ndp's socialism is very nominal (if that, they denounced it). but it's still always difficult for a leftist to come to terms with this when it's in front of them. and, today, it's in front of us.

the crux of what the liberals are pushing is in setting up a new environmental infrastructure bank as an arm of the bank of canada that funds itself via floating "green bonds". this is an update on the infrastructure tactic we used after world war two, which allowed us to build most of what we see around us. i get the impression that this is meant to be a very large scale project. the reason klein et al suggest tobin and carbon taxes is that it's seen as more feasible than floating bonds; the liberals are quietly presenting an even better funding tactic. if there's a party that's going to move towards the manifesto issued by klein & barlow, it's crystal clear at this point that it's going to be the liberals and not the ndp.

and, we're left with the hard truth that we're seeing a confluence of platform positions on the left in canada - but that it's under the liberal party. what's emerging is a reality where elizabeth may, maude barlow, naomi klein and the rest are seeing their visions most likely accomplished by the liberals - and only the liberals, because the ndp are moving in the opposite direction in planning everything around profit made from dirty oil.

it's not what i want to be saying. there's some things about the liberals i don't like, but i think they're mostly reduced to issues that *must* be largely worked out in court. however, the reality is that they are the only major party that is serious about putting the proper steps in motion that we need to have set in motion to move into a post-carbon future, even as they're refusing to turn the taps off any time soon.

pragmatic and realistic leftists need to see things as they really are and vote accordingly.

every time i take one of these polls, i'm at the very edge of the libertarian socialist quadrant; i just pulled one up, and it said that i'm more of a libertarian than the dalai lama, and more of a communist than nelson mandela - who were the only people listed in the quadrant.

and, yet i tend to vote liberal. funny that.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3234556

mulcair certainly knows what he's talking about, but is wrong about almost all of it.

trudeau doesn't appear to really know what he's talking about, but is mostly right and pretty much across the board.

and harper neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he correct on most issues.

it took me weeks to forget about how truly awful trudeau was in the first debate, and while he was not much better here the difference is that mulcair was a lot less effective without having may to play off of.

trudeau: C-
mulcair: D-
harper: F

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues-canadians-1.3234556

so, did fiorina really win this debate?

in a word: no. i wouldn't say anybody really won. then again, it's like trying to pick who is best at an alien mating ritual. i really haven't a clue what republicans voters want.

but, you can see from the start that she was supposed to win - from the first question. and, it's not hard to figure it out.

when women candidates run against male candidates, they automatically get a roughly 5% bump. that's not to say clinton will necessarily win, but sanders doesn't have the demographic advantage that obama had in getting....i think it was 98% of the black vote? correct me if i'm wrong, but i think that's actually true.

clinton will not get 98% of the female vote. but, if she runs against a dude - any dude - she's guaranteed at least half of it. american elections are perpetually won on the margins, in these kinds of identity dominance plays.

if clinton is the nominee, the republicans essentially have no choice but to run a female candidate. and, as far as i can see, she's the only one running. further, if you flip the situation around, it's fiorina that gets the female bump over sanders.

it's a statistical fact. hopefully, it disappears in a generation or two. for now, it's the reality on the ground.

what you're seeing in the coverage is that fiorina has now been chosen as the establishment candidate. and, they have a pretty good track record of fabricating reality. we'll have to see if they can pull this off or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WwzXkJd8aY

they hate clinton. this seems to be the tactic i was waiting for.

also: the correct answer is eleanor roosevelt, but you won't get that from these turkeys.

the debate was depressing.

mulcair certainly knows what he's talking about, but is wrong about almost all of it.

trudeau doesn't appear to really know what he's talking about, but is mostly right and pretty much across the board.

and harper neither knows what he is talking about, nor is he correct on most issues.

it took me weeks to forget about how truly awful trudeau was in the first debate, and while he was not much better here, the difference is that mulcair was a lot less effective without having may to play off of.

trudeau: C-
mulcair: D-
harper: F

the choices are throwing the calculus that they've spent the last 20 years constructing into the trash heap.

correlations will melt away into the sea, exposing no causal factors.

it will be back to the drawing board, as the archetype says.

wayne did always need that winger on his right to bounce the puck off.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/gretzky-harper-1.3234136

kurri. robitaille.

i think the numbers we've been seeing in quebec suggest that it's more likely that mulcair's seat is an open question.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-papineau-sep18-1.3233577

John Gee
LOL !

see if you can place a bet in Vegas on that,

Ha Ha Ha,

What a kook !

Jessica Murray
the liberals seem to be running close to 30% in quebec, which means they're probably running close to or above 50% on the island. when the liberals are doing well in quebec, they are likely to win outremont.

the finance minister has ultimate legal authority to set interest rates, not the governor.

something else i'd like to know is whether that proposed infrastructure bank is meant to be printing money from the bank of canada. if so, that's a big difference in terms of what rates are, and opens up the ability for the government to raise rates without putting themselves in too much debt.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-debate-central-bank-1.3232927

IKEA Monkey
The Gov't of Canada has never interfered with the Bank of Canada's monetary policy in it's entire history.

Jessica Murray
that's ambiguous. there were some issues in the 60s.

my understanding is that there's a consultation process that has, up to this point, broadly resulted in consensus decision making.

but, legally, the finance minister has the authority. it's not independent like it is in the united states - or designed to be, either.

Gerry F
CBC WHY do you put all the Twitter stuff in every article? It's painfully difficult to read.
If I wanted to read Twitter stuff I would log on to it and read the news there.

Jessica Murray
i avoid twitter for the precise reason that the level of discourse on the site is painful. and it's active avoidance, rather than just a passive lack of participation; distinct rejection, rather than mere disinterest. if i was walking down the street and twitter start walking towards me, i would start walking in the other direction..

i'm an old internet nerd, from back in the days when people went on to the internet to avoid the inane idiocy of the culture around them. twitter is wholly representative of that cultural idiocy that the internet was once an escape from. it's consequently the actual, literal death of the internet.

www.cbc.ca/news/trending/canada-election-2015-globe-debate-weird-moments-1.3233233