i've seen footage of those training camps in michigan.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1dygHcUM4g
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
i would like to see somebody show up at a citizenship ceremony in a spiderman costume, and report back what happens, please.
i suspect that nothing will happen at all.
and, if they insist on it, i would love to see anti-spiderman legislation. that would be great.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2105-full-text-of-rosemary-barton-interview-with-stephen-harper-1.3259045
i suspect that nothing will happen at all.
and, if they insist on it, i would love to see anti-spiderman legislation. that would be great.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2105-full-text-of-rosemary-barton-interview-with-stephen-harper-1.3259045
i think the mainstreet poll shed a little light into this, if you check the full results. this is the mainstreet poll:
conservative: 32
liberal: 24
ndp: 20
undecided: 15
that puts the conservatives in the range that nanos is putting them in (i have no faith in the internet polls), but the liberals and ndp lower. now, if you take into consideration that there is broad consistency that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecideds, what it really seems to suggest is that that "promiscuous progressive" vote is coming up split in the ivr polls.
i've worked as a telephone interviewer, and i can tell you that it is common to get somebody on the phone, have them say they're undecided, and then have them say "well, i'll probably vote for ...", in which case you have to record that. you can't do that on the ivr. and, yeah, the internet polls may be splitting the difference due to something like this, too.
it may be that the split the ivr is picking up is more accurate in determining how many people are literally undecided, but less accurate in picking up where they're leaning. and, so, the better option may be to take them both seriously.
if you take 10 of that decided and give it to the liberals, and take 5 and give it to the ndp, it's pretty close to the nanos poll. and, you can justify that by pointing out that the mainstreet poll has a much larger sample size.
i wish nanos called more people. but, i do prefer his methodology because that discussion is far better in getting an accurate response. at least ivr is still random, so i'll take it over internet. but, the key may be in interpreting the results literally. and, it may be saying that, in this election, the conservative vote is decided and the ndp/liberal vote isn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683
Mint-Berry Crunch
I guess you forgot that Nanos was most accurate last election.
jessica murray
no, i agree that nanos is the benchmark - not just from last election, but over the last several elections. but, that doesn't mean one can discard the other polling. what you want to do is find a way to make them consistent with each other.
what i'm saying is that nanos may be picking up people that are *leaning* liberal right now, but that are in fact still undecided.
that would mean that the ivr polls are overweighting the conservatives *because* they are properly measuring the undecideds. if you're merely leaning liberal right now, there's no contradiction in telling nanos that you'll probably vote liberal and telling mainstreet that you're undecided.
there's also still two weeks to go. that's half the length of a normal election campaign.
Conned No More
Those 30% are die-hard radical populists. http://www.4data.ca/ottawa/archive/harper/harper-noble-lie.html
jessica murray
i'm not going to read that right now. i've probably read it before. but, yeah. the conservatives don't go under 30% very often. and they've never received less than 27.
Mint-Berry Crunch
Harper thanks you for this predominantly Conservative attitude.
jessica murray
oh, get real. i'm a libertarian socialist.
rather, i might suggest that ignoring the evidence you don't like is rather conservative, in nature.
it's not hard to make the data consistent. live interviewers can get a better handle on where people are leaning, whereas ivr gets a better handle on absolute categories.
so, you can read it consistently by looking at the ivr data as core support and the live phone data as leaning support.
that would mean that nanos is probably the most accurate as to who people would vote for today. but, what the ivr polling is really suggesting is that liberal-leaning voters haven't completely written off the ndp, as of yet
or if you want to give it a liberal spin, think of it like this: it suggests the liberal ceiling right now is somewhere around 40.
conservative: 32
liberal: 24
ndp: 20
undecided: 15
that puts the conservatives in the range that nanos is putting them in (i have no faith in the internet polls), but the liberals and ndp lower. now, if you take into consideration that there is broad consistency that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecideds, what it really seems to suggest is that that "promiscuous progressive" vote is coming up split in the ivr polls.
i've worked as a telephone interviewer, and i can tell you that it is common to get somebody on the phone, have them say they're undecided, and then have them say "well, i'll probably vote for ...", in which case you have to record that. you can't do that on the ivr. and, yeah, the internet polls may be splitting the difference due to something like this, too.
it may be that the split the ivr is picking up is more accurate in determining how many people are literally undecided, but less accurate in picking up where they're leaning. and, so, the better option may be to take them both seriously.
if you take 10 of that decided and give it to the liberals, and take 5 and give it to the ndp, it's pretty close to the nanos poll. and, you can justify that by pointing out that the mainstreet poll has a much larger sample size.
i wish nanos called more people. but, i do prefer his methodology because that discussion is far better in getting an accurate response. at least ivr is still random, so i'll take it over internet. but, the key may be in interpreting the results literally. and, it may be saying that, in this election, the conservative vote is decided and the ndp/liberal vote isn't.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct6-1.3258683
Mint-Berry Crunch
I guess you forgot that Nanos was most accurate last election.
jessica murray
no, i agree that nanos is the benchmark - not just from last election, but over the last several elections. but, that doesn't mean one can discard the other polling. what you want to do is find a way to make them consistent with each other.
what i'm saying is that nanos may be picking up people that are *leaning* liberal right now, but that are in fact still undecided.
that would mean that the ivr polls are overweighting the conservatives *because* they are properly measuring the undecideds. if you're merely leaning liberal right now, there's no contradiction in telling nanos that you'll probably vote liberal and telling mainstreet that you're undecided.
there's also still two weeks to go. that's half the length of a normal election campaign.
Conned No More
Those 30% are die-hard radical populists. http://www.4data.ca/ottawa/archive/harper/harper-noble-lie.html
jessica murray
i'm not going to read that right now. i've probably read it before. but, yeah. the conservatives don't go under 30% very often. and they've never received less than 27.
Mint-Berry Crunch
Harper thanks you for this predominantly Conservative attitude.
jessica murray
oh, get real. i'm a libertarian socialist.
rather, i might suggest that ignoring the evidence you don't like is rather conservative, in nature.
it's not hard to make the data consistent. live interviewers can get a better handle on where people are leaning, whereas ivr gets a better handle on absolute categories.
so, you can read it consistently by looking at the ivr data as core support and the live phone data as leaning support.
that would mean that nanos is probably the most accurate as to who people would vote for today. but, what the ivr polling is really suggesting is that liberal-leaning voters haven't completely written off the ndp, as of yet
or if you want to give it a liberal spin, think of it like this: it suggests the liberal ceiling right now is somewhere around 40.
a substantial amount of this - green infrastructure, lower pharmaceuticals, agriculture subsidies, and more - may be in contradiction to the tpp. they're taking the logically correct position in pointing out that they need to read it first before they can make a decision, but everybody expects them to sign on to it. so, what takes priority, here? their campaign promises or the trade agreement?
in some cases, this document provides a good groundwork for why these sorts of trade agreements are a breach of sovereignty, in that it articulates a number of points that could be challenged or reversed by foreign investors.
i've said this about the ndp: give me more specifics. give me clear red lines. if the liberals are going to throw out a platform like this on the eve of the signing of an agreement like the tpp, they kind of need to do this, as well.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-trudeau-1.3256800
in some cases, this document provides a good groundwork for why these sorts of trade agreements are a breach of sovereignty, in that it articulates a number of points that could be challenged or reversed by foreign investors.
i've said this about the ndp: give me more specifics. give me clear red lines. if the liberals are going to throw out a platform like this on the eve of the signing of an agreement like the tpp, they kind of need to do this, as well.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberal-trudeau-1.3256800
there may be a valid point in here somewhere, except that it's not 1999, it's 2015. i know: the media tends to get confused about this fairly often. except it usually thinks it's 1989, rather than 1999. you know, 1989 was the year the contemporary pop queen was *born* in, right? she even named her recent record after it.
because 1989 is the distant past, shrouded in mystique and mystery. it's back in the olden days, when they didn't even have the internet. how did they catch a taxi?
the polls in ontario are indeed lining up with the last provincial election. but, the liberals have been in power in ontario for the better part of a generation, now. and, stasis in ontario means the liberals have the incumbency advantage, not the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/2015-election-has-parallels-to-1999-ontario-vote-1.3258068
because 1989 is the distant past, shrouded in mystique and mystery. it's back in the olden days, when they didn't even have the internet. how did they catch a taxi?
the polls in ontario are indeed lining up with the last provincial election. but, the liberals have been in power in ontario for the better part of a generation, now. and, stasis in ontario means the liberals have the incumbency advantage, not the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/2015-election-has-parallels-to-1999-ontario-vote-1.3258068
just for clarity: dawkins would never endorse restricting somebody's right to choose to wear or not wear a veil. he might suggest debate. but, he's an oldskool, very literal liberal that would cite mills and something like the harm principle.
as an atheist dawkins reader, i think the caricature is badly misinformed.
the caricature is perhaps accurate if you replace dawkins with sam harris, who, unlike the very reasonable dawkins, very much deserves your wrath.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/10/islamophobia-niqab-and-dog-whistle-racism-canadian-election
Gn
Sam Harris is not even a true atheist, but speaks for non-deist spirituality. No one who thinks and discusses "deserves" anybody's wrath.
deathtokoalas
well.
when these debates come up, a lot of lofty accusations get thrown around. dawkins is not a racist, he just has no patience for nonsense. harris has, i think, crossed some lines repeatedly.
in the sense that i think that it is fair game to call sam harris a racist, and purely libellous to suggest it of dawkins, i'm comfortable with suggesting he deserves some wrath.
as an atheist dawkins reader, i think the caricature is badly misinformed.
the caricature is perhaps accurate if you replace dawkins with sam harris, who, unlike the very reasonable dawkins, very much deserves your wrath.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/10/islamophobia-niqab-and-dog-whistle-racism-canadian-election
Gn
Sam Harris is not even a true atheist, but speaks for non-deist spirituality. No one who thinks and discusses "deserves" anybody's wrath.
deathtokoalas
well.
when these debates come up, a lot of lofty accusations get thrown around. dawkins is not a racist, he just has no patience for nonsense. harris has, i think, crossed some lines repeatedly.
in the sense that i think that it is fair game to call sam harris a racist, and purely libellous to suggest it of dawkins, i'm comfortable with suggesting he deserves some wrath.
you have to understand the canadian spectrum a little, first. the conservatives are somewhere between rinos and right-wing democrats; they're to the left of the democrats on a lot of issues. the liberals are somewhere closer to the green party. and, there's a "new democratic party" that has historically been further to the left but, in this election, has tried to plonk itself somewhere in between the liberals and the conservatives. so, they support decriminalization first, and then a panel to study the issue [which sounds like legalization, but, then, why not just say that?].
what that means is that the liberals command what you could call the canadian equivalent of the tipper gore vote, and that they have to present the issue in a certain way.
of course, they're right, though. the status quo in canada is de facto decriminalization. regulation will certainly make it harder for kids under 18 in most places - this is ultimately a province-by-province issue once the federal law is abolished - to get access, and who argues that this isn't positive? i mean, you can work in a grey area down to 16, but who is in favour of 14 year-olds smoking pot? yet, is that not the average age of first toke?
the media is downplaying the issue. but, i suspect it's a bigger vote driver than is being reported, even if people don't want to actually admit it.
but, will it actually happen? it's a first step. the provinces have to step up and implement it. that's going to happen unevenly. but, it's also a populist issue that will likely threaten right-wing provincial governments, and that in itself is a positive.
expect it to happen fairly quickly in british columbia and ontario. the quebec liberals are strange animals, so that's a little less clear, but it's a matter of time. out east, eventually. the prairie provinces may lag a little. the ndp government in alberta may even use it as an excuse to prove they're not really left-wing. but, you get the point: it's a lot of haggling at the provincial level, after the federal law comes down. which, i guess, is the opposite of the way it's being done in the united states.
www.theweedblog.com/would-a-liberal-party-election-victory-lead-to-marijuana-legalization-in-canada/
what that means is that the liberals command what you could call the canadian equivalent of the tipper gore vote, and that they have to present the issue in a certain way.
of course, they're right, though. the status quo in canada is de facto decriminalization. regulation will certainly make it harder for kids under 18 in most places - this is ultimately a province-by-province issue once the federal law is abolished - to get access, and who argues that this isn't positive? i mean, you can work in a grey area down to 16, but who is in favour of 14 year-olds smoking pot? yet, is that not the average age of first toke?
the media is downplaying the issue. but, i suspect it's a bigger vote driver than is being reported, even if people don't want to actually admit it.
but, will it actually happen? it's a first step. the provinces have to step up and implement it. that's going to happen unevenly. but, it's also a populist issue that will likely threaten right-wing provincial governments, and that in itself is a positive.
expect it to happen fairly quickly in british columbia and ontario. the quebec liberals are strange animals, so that's a little less clear, but it's a matter of time. out east, eventually. the prairie provinces may lag a little. the ndp government in alberta may even use it as an excuse to prove they're not really left-wing. but, you get the point: it's a lot of haggling at the provincial level, after the federal law comes down. which, i guess, is the opposite of the way it's being done in the united states.
www.theweedblog.com/would-a-liberal-party-election-victory-lead-to-marijuana-legalization-in-canada/
just another note on the polls...
nanos has the liberals at 35%, and the conservatives at 31% on his three-day rolling averages. a mainstreet poll was released today with the conservatives at 38% and the liberals at 29%. they both have the ndp in distant third. these differences are well outside of the margins of error. how is this possible?
if you were naive, you might point to mainstreet having the larger sample size, but that's what margins of error are for. the larger sample size means there's a smaller margin. it's not enough to explain drastically different results that are outside the margins.
the first thing i noticed was that nanos is not undersampling young people. this is a change that some of the polling firms are doing to compensate for not getting the bc election right a few years ago; they've concluded that weighting young people relative to the census is flawed because young people are less likely to vote. the polls that you see with the conservatives above 32-33 are, without exception, overweighting older people on purpose under the assumption that they're more likely to vote. the consensus seems to be to weight 65+ at 40%, 50-65 at 30%, 35-50 at 20% and 18-35 at 10%, +/- a bit. that's obviously not "relative to the census" as claimed, but rather relative to a guess as to how likely they are to vote. it's blatant data manipulation. but, it's hard for me to get on them too hard about it, because i fully realize that it might actually be right.
at the least, this should be understood.
but, i noticed that the mainstreet polling also had the conservatives ahead almost 2:1 with people under 35, which is pretty weird. reweighting would not create consistency. it's not just that, there's something else.
if you look carefully, you see that something else: the mainstreet poll also had undecideds at around 20%, whereas nanos has them around 10%. if you look at the actual numbers, they have the conservatives at 32%, which is more consistent. but, that also takes the liberals down to 24% and the ndp down to 20%. consistency is then possible to create by disproportionately distributing the undecideds to the liberals, and giving the rest to the ndp. multiple polls have suggested that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecided vote, so that does seem consistent, if somewhat creative.
but, why is mainstreet picking up this huge number of undecideds and nanos picking up huge numbers of liberal voters, and lesser numbers of ndp voters?
it may come down to the question. mainstreet may be deciding to file weak support under undecided, while nanos is deciding to file it as leaning.
it's impossible to say which is more accurate. but, it may suggest that the ndp is still under consideration by a large number of people that are claiming they'll vote liberal.
at least, they can both be right that way. and, these are both reliable firms, so it's hard to come to the conclusion that one or the other is so drastically wrong.
if that analysis is correct, it would mean that the greater sample size is useful at zeroing in on conservative support locally (so, they had them at 36% in ontario, whereas nanos has them at 32, and that is in the nanos margin), but not as useful in determining liberal or ndp support locally, due to the larger number of undecideds - with the caveat that the nanos data seems to suggest that this undecided is currently leaning disproportionately liberal.
or, you could look at it the other way - that it's useful in determining core liberal and ndp support, and useful in measuring the size of the swing that exists between them, which is quite large across the board.
that would have the effect of skewing conservative support upwards, and it would give the ndp a little hope that they're not totally out of it.
hopefully, that undecided comes down a little in their next set of polls. because a larger sample size really ought to be more useful, not less useful. but, factoring in such a large level of undecideds may very well be a more accurate reading, for the moment, too.
nanos has the liberals at 35%, and the conservatives at 31% on his three-day rolling averages. a mainstreet poll was released today with the conservatives at 38% and the liberals at 29%. they both have the ndp in distant third. these differences are well outside of the margins of error. how is this possible?
if you were naive, you might point to mainstreet having the larger sample size, but that's what margins of error are for. the larger sample size means there's a smaller margin. it's not enough to explain drastically different results that are outside the margins.
the first thing i noticed was that nanos is not undersampling young people. this is a change that some of the polling firms are doing to compensate for not getting the bc election right a few years ago; they've concluded that weighting young people relative to the census is flawed because young people are less likely to vote. the polls that you see with the conservatives above 32-33 are, without exception, overweighting older people on purpose under the assumption that they're more likely to vote. the consensus seems to be to weight 65+ at 40%, 50-65 at 30%, 35-50 at 20% and 18-35 at 10%, +/- a bit. that's obviously not "relative to the census" as claimed, but rather relative to a guess as to how likely they are to vote. it's blatant data manipulation. but, it's hard for me to get on them too hard about it, because i fully realize that it might actually be right.
at the least, this should be understood.
but, i noticed that the mainstreet polling also had the conservatives ahead almost 2:1 with people under 35, which is pretty weird. reweighting would not create consistency. it's not just that, there's something else.
if you look carefully, you see that something else: the mainstreet poll also had undecideds at around 20%, whereas nanos has them around 10%. if you look at the actual numbers, they have the conservatives at 32%, which is more consistent. but, that also takes the liberals down to 24% and the ndp down to 20%. consistency is then possible to create by disproportionately distributing the undecideds to the liberals, and giving the rest to the ndp. multiple polls have suggested that the conservatives are getting almost none of the undecided vote, so that does seem consistent, if somewhat creative.
but, why is mainstreet picking up this huge number of undecideds and nanos picking up huge numbers of liberal voters, and lesser numbers of ndp voters?
it may come down to the question. mainstreet may be deciding to file weak support under undecided, while nanos is deciding to file it as leaning.
it's impossible to say which is more accurate. but, it may suggest that the ndp is still under consideration by a large number of people that are claiming they'll vote liberal.
at least, they can both be right that way. and, these are both reliable firms, so it's hard to come to the conclusion that one or the other is so drastically wrong.
if that analysis is correct, it would mean that the greater sample size is useful at zeroing in on conservative support locally (so, they had them at 36% in ontario, whereas nanos has them at 32, and that is in the nanos margin), but not as useful in determining liberal or ndp support locally, due to the larger number of undecideds - with the caveat that the nanos data seems to suggest that this undecided is currently leaning disproportionately liberal.
or, you could look at it the other way - that it's useful in determining core liberal and ndp support, and useful in measuring the size of the swing that exists between them, which is quite large across the board.
that would have the effect of skewing conservative support upwards, and it would give the ndp a little hope that they're not totally out of it.
hopefully, that undecided comes down a little in their next set of polls. because a larger sample size really ought to be more useful, not less useful. but, factoring in such a large level of undecideds may very well be a more accurate reading, for the moment, too.
that's quebec this morning. but it's misleading.
first, the hijab narrative is nonsense. as you can see, the conservatives seem to wavered up a little at about the same time as that was happening. remember, kids: correlation does not imply causation. it seems to have been a little randomness in the data, nothing more. but, hey, when you have an election like this, the media will jump on anything it possibly can.
so, the hijab thing in quebec is bollocks. there's no trace of it in the polling. if it does show up eventually, it's going to be because the media created it. but for all the problems the country has, we're better than that. more than most of us. almost all of us. so, ignore that. and, fuck the media.
what you don't see there is undecideds. nanos decided not to publish that this morning. but, he published it yesterday and it was roughly twice the national average, around 16%.
what that means is that the place ndp support is going is to "i don't know". nobody is directly benefiting. there's been no swing. rather, what we're seeing is a large pool of apathetic voters that are disenchanted by the ndp's move to the right and now don't like any of the options.
here's the thing: if they choose not to vote at all, if we have record low turnout in quebec, then it's the liberals that benefit because, in quebec, they have the strongest base. for now, anyways. a lot of it is getting older.
but, here's another twist: the media narrative is only likely to worsen voter turnout and increase apathy. and, honestly? i agree. it's depressing. as a ballot question, it's enough to make you want to spoil your ballot.
now, you've got the tpp thrown in - and the fact that everybody except the bloc and greens are in favour of it.
...and a long election...
what this is is a toxic stew leading to voter apathy and increasing disengagement, and that's what the numbers here are really saying: as previous ndp voters tune out altogether, the liberals are closing in.
so, i'd be leaning towards the bloc being the most likely to pick up the voters that have been knocked loose.
but, i think the larger trends signal a drive towards record low voter turnout.
first, the hijab narrative is nonsense. as you can see, the conservatives seem to wavered up a little at about the same time as that was happening. remember, kids: correlation does not imply causation. it seems to have been a little randomness in the data, nothing more. but, hey, when you have an election like this, the media will jump on anything it possibly can.
so, the hijab thing in quebec is bollocks. there's no trace of it in the polling. if it does show up eventually, it's going to be because the media created it. but for all the problems the country has, we're better than that. more than most of us. almost all of us. so, ignore that. and, fuck the media.
what you don't see there is undecideds. nanos decided not to publish that this morning. but, he published it yesterday and it was roughly twice the national average, around 16%.
what that means is that the place ndp support is going is to "i don't know". nobody is directly benefiting. there's been no swing. rather, what we're seeing is a large pool of apathetic voters that are disenchanted by the ndp's move to the right and now don't like any of the options.
here's the thing: if they choose not to vote at all, if we have record low turnout in quebec, then it's the liberals that benefit because, in quebec, they have the strongest base. for now, anyways. a lot of it is getting older.
but, here's another twist: the media narrative is only likely to worsen voter turnout and increase apathy. and, honestly? i agree. it's depressing. as a ballot question, it's enough to make you want to spoil your ballot.
now, you've got the tpp thrown in - and the fact that everybody except the bloc and greens are in favour of it.
...and a long election...
what this is is a toxic stew leading to voter apathy and increasing disengagement, and that's what the numbers here are really saying: as previous ndp voters tune out altogether, the liberals are closing in.
so, i'd be leaning towards the bloc being the most likely to pick up the voters that have been knocked loose.
but, i think the larger trends signal a drive towards record low voter turnout.
Monday, October 5, 2015
the tpp just got signed.
i'm going to be honest - it's probably spitting on a fish. that is to say that the deal is no doubt bad news, but it's not particularly likely to make issues worse than they already are. we're already bound by a plethora of investor-state dispute mechanisms, and with most of these countries through the wto. investors in japan and australia can already sue us. and, if you go down the list and really think about it carefully on a point-by-point basis, what you'll conclude is that it's another level of trash on what is, at this point, a rather heaping pile. it should be opposed - but the sky will not fall, because it's already fallen.
but, what about the electoral ramifications?
harper's support right now is already down at it's minimal level. it's hard to see where he's going to lose support. the ndp is hoping it gets some support from dairy farmers; i don't see that happening on a level that's going to swing any actual ridings. best case scenario, he might win some ridings by 5 points instead of 20 points. rural ontario is too hard to the right. and, the bulk of farmers there may even buy into it, on the basis of faith in the party.
but, i do think that this is a big mover on the left.
i think we all know that the liberals will support the deal, bar the inclusion of some unmitigated catastrophe. if they make that clear, how much support will they lose? this is bad news for the lead the liberals have built over the last week, with little upside to it. nobody leaning left is going to move to support the liberals on this, and nobody leaning right is, either.
but, here's something the media may go out of it's way to confuse you about: the ndp are also likely to support the deal. or, at least, mulcair is likely to support the deal. can he convince his caucus, if he manages to win? what you're likely to get from the ndp over the next two weeks is a lot of obfuscating language designed to confuse you, and set them up to make either choice. if they win the election on this obfuscation, which is about the only tactic they have left, then they will certainly vote for the deal. but, if they lose the election by enough seats that they can get away with doing so, they will no doubt vote against it, in order to carry on the ploy. see, this is why i'm supporting the liberals - you can't get a straight answer out of the ndp right now.
they might surprise me. they might come out explicitly against it; in fact, i hope they do. and, if they do, i might consider it. but, in terms of the long game, the ndp may actually be better off hoping they lose the election, so they can vote against the deal and not tarnish themselves on it.
if they don't explicitly state disapproval, it is a ploy, and i expect them to vote in favour of it if they win. or, at least, i expect mulcair to. it could seriously split the caucus on the first vote.
so, please pay very close attention to what mulcair says over the next few days. do not assume he opposes the deal. and, look at the language he uses carefully for loopholes that will allow him to support the deal should he win.
i'll give you an example of what to look for: energy east. what mulcair has been saying is that he wants a new environmental review done, and then follow the recommendations. sounds neutral at first. but then he blames opposition to the pipeline on a lack of transparent environmental policy. the conclusion is that he supports the pipeline, and wants to use the environmental review as an argument against those that oppose it. but, if you're not paying close attention, you may get the misperception that he's opposed to it.
this is what you need to expect: obfuscating positions designed to confuse you. and, i'll be the first to apologize if he contradicts me.
which brings up the final wildcard: the green party. the green party opposes the deal. further, they oppose the deal on the proper basis: they are opposed to the investor tribunals. this is what people want to hear. is it enough that people will vote for them? and will it be enough to win some seats?
so, this could be seismic.
or it could sneak under the radar.
just please listen carefully. and critically.
-
it would be nice to hear something like this from the ndp.
don't expect it.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-trans-pacific-partnership-charade-tpp-isnt-about-free-trade-at-all-2015-10-05
i'm going to be honest - it's probably spitting on a fish. that is to say that the deal is no doubt bad news, but it's not particularly likely to make issues worse than they already are. we're already bound by a plethora of investor-state dispute mechanisms, and with most of these countries through the wto. investors in japan and australia can already sue us. and, if you go down the list and really think about it carefully on a point-by-point basis, what you'll conclude is that it's another level of trash on what is, at this point, a rather heaping pile. it should be opposed - but the sky will not fall, because it's already fallen.
but, what about the electoral ramifications?
harper's support right now is already down at it's minimal level. it's hard to see where he's going to lose support. the ndp is hoping it gets some support from dairy farmers; i don't see that happening on a level that's going to swing any actual ridings. best case scenario, he might win some ridings by 5 points instead of 20 points. rural ontario is too hard to the right. and, the bulk of farmers there may even buy into it, on the basis of faith in the party.
but, i do think that this is a big mover on the left.
i think we all know that the liberals will support the deal, bar the inclusion of some unmitigated catastrophe. if they make that clear, how much support will they lose? this is bad news for the lead the liberals have built over the last week, with little upside to it. nobody leaning left is going to move to support the liberals on this, and nobody leaning right is, either.
but, here's something the media may go out of it's way to confuse you about: the ndp are also likely to support the deal. or, at least, mulcair is likely to support the deal. can he convince his caucus, if he manages to win? what you're likely to get from the ndp over the next two weeks is a lot of obfuscating language designed to confuse you, and set them up to make either choice. if they win the election on this obfuscation, which is about the only tactic they have left, then they will certainly vote for the deal. but, if they lose the election by enough seats that they can get away with doing so, they will no doubt vote against it, in order to carry on the ploy. see, this is why i'm supporting the liberals - you can't get a straight answer out of the ndp right now.
they might surprise me. they might come out explicitly against it; in fact, i hope they do. and, if they do, i might consider it. but, in terms of the long game, the ndp may actually be better off hoping they lose the election, so they can vote against the deal and not tarnish themselves on it.
if they don't explicitly state disapproval, it is a ploy, and i expect them to vote in favour of it if they win. or, at least, i expect mulcair to. it could seriously split the caucus on the first vote.
so, please pay very close attention to what mulcair says over the next few days. do not assume he opposes the deal. and, look at the language he uses carefully for loopholes that will allow him to support the deal should he win.
i'll give you an example of what to look for: energy east. what mulcair has been saying is that he wants a new environmental review done, and then follow the recommendations. sounds neutral at first. but then he blames opposition to the pipeline on a lack of transparent environmental policy. the conclusion is that he supports the pipeline, and wants to use the environmental review as an argument against those that oppose it. but, if you're not paying close attention, you may get the misperception that he's opposed to it.
this is what you need to expect: obfuscating positions designed to confuse you. and, i'll be the first to apologize if he contradicts me.
which brings up the final wildcard: the green party. the green party opposes the deal. further, they oppose the deal on the proper basis: they are opposed to the investor tribunals. this is what people want to hear. is it enough that people will vote for them? and will it be enough to win some seats?
so, this could be seismic.
or it could sneak under the radar.
just please listen carefully. and critically.
-
it would be nice to hear something like this from the ndp.
don't expect it.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-trans-pacific-partnership-charade-tpp-isnt-about-free-trade-at-all-2015-10-05
ok, so, now that we're stuck with this, we want to support a low dollar to act as a tariff on goods into the country and make our exports more competitive. and, that means we want to transition out of oil, because we don't want oil rising the dollar up and making our exports uncompetitive and ruining our local industry.
so, it's a perpetual war between the east and the west, now. our interests are directly contradictory.
it may even make sense to dissolve confederation. ontario will be suffocated under a high dollar.
no.
seriously.
it's zero sum.
it is now in ontario's imperative interest to do everything it possibly can to obstruct albertan oil from getting to market.
i hope that ontarians, both inside and out of government, are pro-active on this point.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-dollar-rises-stocks-jump-on-news-of-tpp-trade-deal-1.3257089
Gary in NS
The only point that I agree with is kicking Ontario out of Confederation.
jessica murray
i'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but the observation is that alberta has a different set of economic interests than the rest of the country and that there really isn't an answer. the monetary union, in particular, just doesn't make sense. if the dollar goes up, alberta has to accept a larger responsibility in transfer payments. if it goes down, alberta has to consider possibly becoming a recipient.
probably the best outcome would be alberta joining the united states. what they want is parity. the usd is the petrodollar, after all. that would allow the rest of the country to deflate the currency to around $0.60, which would be optimal in competing in the tpp.
the oil is a burden to the rest of the country. it's going to stunt our growth, and force us to demand more in transfers - which i think we have a right to, considering that it's the economic impact of the oil that's stunting us. under the logic of the tpp, they would have a responsibility under tort law to compensate us for lost growth potential. but, of course, this is not optimal for anybody. what's optimal is decoupling, so the oil can no longer harm the growth potential.
i mean, they won't give us any kind of a deal on the oil, anyways. we went through this. they told us to freeze in the dark. we continue to import oil from the middle east. we'd be better off decoupling from the oil producing regions so we can grow our economy faster and then buying it nation-nation. that would actually give us more leverage.
so, i don't know how you do this. but i think that if everybody sits down and looks at the situation carefully, there's no way to conclude that confederation makes sense, under the tpp.
so, it's a perpetual war between the east and the west, now. our interests are directly contradictory.
it may even make sense to dissolve confederation. ontario will be suffocated under a high dollar.
no.
seriously.
it's zero sum.
it is now in ontario's imperative interest to do everything it possibly can to obstruct albertan oil from getting to market.
i hope that ontarians, both inside and out of government, are pro-active on this point.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadian-dollar-rises-stocks-jump-on-news-of-tpp-trade-deal-1.3257089
Gary in NS
The only point that I agree with is kicking Ontario out of Confederation.
jessica murray
i'm not sure what the best way to do this is, but the observation is that alberta has a different set of economic interests than the rest of the country and that there really isn't an answer. the monetary union, in particular, just doesn't make sense. if the dollar goes up, alberta has to accept a larger responsibility in transfer payments. if it goes down, alberta has to consider possibly becoming a recipient.
probably the best outcome would be alberta joining the united states. what they want is parity. the usd is the petrodollar, after all. that would allow the rest of the country to deflate the currency to around $0.60, which would be optimal in competing in the tpp.
the oil is a burden to the rest of the country. it's going to stunt our growth, and force us to demand more in transfers - which i think we have a right to, considering that it's the economic impact of the oil that's stunting us. under the logic of the tpp, they would have a responsibility under tort law to compensate us for lost growth potential. but, of course, this is not optimal for anybody. what's optimal is decoupling, so the oil can no longer harm the growth potential.
i mean, they won't give us any kind of a deal on the oil, anyways. we went through this. they told us to freeze in the dark. we continue to import oil from the middle east. we'd be better off decoupling from the oil producing regions so we can grow our economy faster and then buying it nation-nation. that would actually give us more leverage.
so, i don't know how you do this. but i think that if everybody sits down and looks at the situation carefully, there's no way to conclude that confederation makes sense, under the tpp.
if people want to understand the actual opposition to this deal, the thing to start with is by googling the following term: investor-state dispute settlement. the various articulations of opposition are almost all based on ramifications of this.
basically, it allows corporations to bypass real judicial systems and have disputes settled by corporate-appointed tribunals. the history of this is pretty clear: the united states always wins.
this is why we argue that it is an abolition of canadian sovereignty.
i went to all kinds of anti-trade protests in the late 90s and early 00s. i don't recall the issue of supply management for dairy farmers ever coming up. and, in fact, these farmers voted overwhelmingly for the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
well, this doesn't say anything important about any of the issues that opponents are likely to draw attention to, with the exception, perhaps, of the automotive issues.
again: i don't consider supply management in dairy to be an important concern. but i still don't know how one proposes that countries on the other side of the pacific can import cheese or butter to canada at a competitive price. and, the lower dollar should offset any benefits american producers see. nor am i going to complain if cheese prices come down a little. hey, it's a little bit of retributive justice for these people for putting harper in power in the first place.
further, japan is a first world country. i can't see how it makes sense to build cars in japan and ship them across the ocean. i think maybe japan might be more interested in building cars in vietnam and shipping them to china, or maybe australia. nor do i see how it makes sense to build cars in vietnam and ship them to canada. i just don't see how the economics make it feasible to build cars for the north american market outside of north america without becoming uncompetitive due to various costs, and nafta already included mexico.
but, listen: we need to be thinking about retooling factories, anyways. we have huge dormant capacities. maybe we could start building electric cars for the local market, or convert them to high speed train factories or whatever else.
again: i'm more interested in things like patents, chapter 11 style agreements, etc. and i really hope this comes up in the discussion, despite being fully aware that it likely won't.
basically, it allows corporations to bypass real judicial systems and have disputes settled by corporate-appointed tribunals. the history of this is pretty clear: the united states always wins.
this is why we argue that it is an abolition of canadian sovereignty.
i went to all kinds of anti-trade protests in the late 90s and early 00s. i don't recall the issue of supply management for dairy farmers ever coming up. and, in fact, these farmers voted overwhelmingly for the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
well, this doesn't say anything important about any of the issues that opponents are likely to draw attention to, with the exception, perhaps, of the automotive issues.
again: i don't consider supply management in dairy to be an important concern. but i still don't know how one proposes that countries on the other side of the pacific can import cheese or butter to canada at a competitive price. and, the lower dollar should offset any benefits american producers see. nor am i going to complain if cheese prices come down a little. hey, it's a little bit of retributive justice for these people for putting harper in power in the first place.
further, japan is a first world country. i can't see how it makes sense to build cars in japan and ship them across the ocean. i think maybe japan might be more interested in building cars in vietnam and shipping them to china, or maybe australia. nor do i see how it makes sense to build cars in vietnam and ship them to canada. i just don't see how the economics make it feasible to build cars for the north american market outside of north america without becoming uncompetitive due to various costs, and nafta already included mexico.
but, listen: we need to be thinking about retooling factories, anyways. we have huge dormant capacities. maybe we could start building electric cars for the local market, or convert them to high speed train factories or whatever else.
again: i'm more interested in things like patents, chapter 11 style agreements, etc. and i really hope this comes up in the discussion, despite being fully aware that it likely won't.
well, this should be interesting.
as far as i can tell, these are the positions of the parties:
conservatives: absolute support.
liberals: near certain support. there's a handful of things that they're likely to not like, but not to the extent that they're likely to reject it - unless it's singularly terrible. but you know who's a wildcard, here? dalton mcguinty. he got nailed on some green procurement. that's a possible sticking point that could build some support near the top. it is known that there are a number of prominent liberals at both levels that are not happy about the way that these deals operate. it will be interesting to see what kind of details come out and what the sitting liberal premiers, in general, have to say about this. but, unless the position is clarified to the contrary, voters should expect the liberals to support the deal.
ndp: this is going to force mulcair to be more specific. i found a quote about pharmaceuticals this morning. is that serious? voters were left to a lot of guesswork regarding this, in trying to interpret what mulcair was saying. my interpretation has been that he's been working up specific issues in such a way that he'll have enough wiggle room to vote for it should the ndp win, but also enough that he can vote against it if it turns out it will pass anyways. this is a retreat to perpetual opposition party-type thinking: they'll promise to vote against it, so long as they can't stop it. but, to be fair, voters should keep an open mind about this. yet, they should also be exceedingly critical about they hear from the ndp, and analyze the language very carefully. all indication is that mulcair, personally, supports the agreement and is only coming out against it for votes, in ways that he can flip on.
the greens oppose.
and, remember: it DOES have to pass a vote in the house of commons before it's over. it's not done yet.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
as far as i can tell, these are the positions of the parties:
conservatives: absolute support.
liberals: near certain support. there's a handful of things that they're likely to not like, but not to the extent that they're likely to reject it - unless it's singularly terrible. but you know who's a wildcard, here? dalton mcguinty. he got nailed on some green procurement. that's a possible sticking point that could build some support near the top. it is known that there are a number of prominent liberals at both levels that are not happy about the way that these deals operate. it will be interesting to see what kind of details come out and what the sitting liberal premiers, in general, have to say about this. but, unless the position is clarified to the contrary, voters should expect the liberals to support the deal.
ndp: this is going to force mulcair to be more specific. i found a quote about pharmaceuticals this morning. is that serious? voters were left to a lot of guesswork regarding this, in trying to interpret what mulcair was saying. my interpretation has been that he's been working up specific issues in such a way that he'll have enough wiggle room to vote for it should the ndp win, but also enough that he can vote against it if it turns out it will pass anyways. this is a retreat to perpetual opposition party-type thinking: they'll promise to vote against it, so long as they can't stop it. but, to be fair, voters should keep an open mind about this. yet, they should also be exceedingly critical about they hear from the ndp, and analyze the language very carefully. all indication is that mulcair, personally, supports the agreement and is only coming out against it for votes, in ways that he can flip on.
the greens oppose.
and, remember: it DOES have to pass a vote in the house of commons before it's over. it's not done yet.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-agreement-atlanta-1.3254569
considering that it now seems clear that the conservatives are not benefiting from the niqab issue, that the apparent bump was just due to variation within the margin of error which has now receded and the media was basically making the issue up out of thin air, and that the bloc are only up a few points (while the liberals, who have the same position, continue to climb), it's the media's responsibility to provide an alternate explanation regarding what's actually driving down ndp support.
the liberals are no less in favour of that pipeline, either.
i'm not sure what it is, frankly. it's easy to understand how some long-time sovereigntists may have read a little too far into the ndp and just went home; that those were never serious votes. and, it's been known for quite a while that the ndp-liberal swing was very soft, and leaning disproportionately to the ndp. but, that should only be so much, one would think.
well, one would think, anyways. i'm open to suggestions [and, again: it is clearly not the niqab, as the main beneficiary is the liberals]. but, i'm willing to accept that there isn't a single driver, so much as one is seeing support firm up.
but, there's a caveat: the nanos polling this morning also put the undecideds in quebec at over 16%, which is the highest in the country. i don't believe that nik was posting detailed tables last month. but, i'm willing to hazard a guess that what's actually happening more than anything else is a movement from the ndp to the undecideds, and that is skewing them down and everybody else up.
actual numbers in quebec this morning are:
ndp: 25.2
liberals: 23.6
bloc: 17.1
undecided: 16.3 <----key
conservative: 14.3
green: 2.4
undecideds elsewhere run roughly 8-11. if that boost in undecideds is almost entirely from the ndp, you can see how that is inflating everybody. decided results:
ndp: 30.1
liberals: 28.1
bloc: 20.1
conservatives: 17.1
but, that is over-estimating the bottom three.
for reference, results from last election were:
ndp: 42.9
bloc: 23.4
cons: 16.5
libs: 14.2
that's really no measurable difference in conservative support since 2011. the bloc are still down, but trending up. the liberals managed 23.7 in 2008, meaning they've got back what they lost in 2011 to the ndp.
that means that the ndp are still holding bloc support, and that the undecided is almost entirely old bloc support.
hrmmn. could be the niqab, after all. but, entirely left-leaning sovereigntist.
that would suggest that the bloc and ndp, liberals and then finally conservatives have the most to potentially gain from what's been knocked loose - in that order.
with an obscure possibility of green support boosting, out of people just being fed up.
--
if you accept the basic premise that quebec is voting primarily with the purpose of a change of government, you could maybe construct a chain of logic with this spike in undecideds:
1) as the primary goal is a change of power, these voters would swing ndp or liberal depending on who they believe is most likely to win.
2) but, if it seems as though the conservatives are winning, they may choose to vote for the bloc in protest.
that's maybe a bit optimistic, from an english-speaker in ontario. but, it might not be far from the truth.
i just have a hard time with this niqab narrative. and not just because i don't like it. the fact is that quebec just voted *against* these kinds of rules in the last provincial election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-challenged-over-niqab-pipelines-on-tout-le-monde-en-parle-1.3256496
NDP returns to its natural ranking 3rd Place. Orange Flush
You like your own posts don't you.. NDP Egomaniac
jessica murray
there's a character limit, it's not my fault.
and, fwiw, i'm to the left of the spectrum. i'd like to see public initiatives to automate local growing, for example. immediate halt to all tar sands production. and, i'd propose re-nationalizing the wheat board as my first act. the greens are probably closest to where i sit, but i'm probably going to vote liberal. i'm very uncomfortable with the ndp's swing to the right.
oh. wait. you meant to suggest i press "like" on my own posts, rather than that i like to reply to my own posts.
i actually really have problems with this like/dislike upvoting system. i'm just thinking back to english class in high school. it was really drilled into me that an opinion is worthless unless it is accompanied by an argument. which is not to discard certain opinions; you can argue anything. but, the value is in the argument, rather than the opinion.
i don't "like" *anything*. anywhere. not on facebook. not on youtube. never, ever. and, for my own content, i disable ratings whenever and wherever i can. if i have an opinion, i post a response; i expect people to post responses to my own content, rather than just rate it.
i could go on with this. i think it's actually kind of frightening, in the way that it threatens to reduce the level of discourse on just about every topic. i don't have a general issue with the internet; i'm not going to argue that technology, itself, is making us illiterate. but things like 100 character limits and upvoting are giant steps backwards. a little more thought needs to be put into it.
of course, advertisers will see it differently. they don't care. they want easy to analyze data.
but, that means that, no, i don't like my own posts. or anybody else's, either.
the liberals are no less in favour of that pipeline, either.
i'm not sure what it is, frankly. it's easy to understand how some long-time sovereigntists may have read a little too far into the ndp and just went home; that those were never serious votes. and, it's been known for quite a while that the ndp-liberal swing was very soft, and leaning disproportionately to the ndp. but, that should only be so much, one would think.
well, one would think, anyways. i'm open to suggestions [and, again: it is clearly not the niqab, as the main beneficiary is the liberals]. but, i'm willing to accept that there isn't a single driver, so much as one is seeing support firm up.
but, there's a caveat: the nanos polling this morning also put the undecideds in quebec at over 16%, which is the highest in the country. i don't believe that nik was posting detailed tables last month. but, i'm willing to hazard a guess that what's actually happening more than anything else is a movement from the ndp to the undecideds, and that is skewing them down and everybody else up.
actual numbers in quebec this morning are:
ndp: 25.2
liberals: 23.6
bloc: 17.1
undecided: 16.3 <----key
conservative: 14.3
green: 2.4
undecideds elsewhere run roughly 8-11. if that boost in undecideds is almost entirely from the ndp, you can see how that is inflating everybody. decided results:
ndp: 30.1
liberals: 28.1
bloc: 20.1
conservatives: 17.1
but, that is over-estimating the bottom three.
for reference, results from last election were:
ndp: 42.9
bloc: 23.4
cons: 16.5
libs: 14.2
that's really no measurable difference in conservative support since 2011. the bloc are still down, but trending up. the liberals managed 23.7 in 2008, meaning they've got back what they lost in 2011 to the ndp.
that means that the ndp are still holding bloc support, and that the undecided is almost entirely old bloc support.
hrmmn. could be the niqab, after all. but, entirely left-leaning sovereigntist.
that would suggest that the bloc and ndp, liberals and then finally conservatives have the most to potentially gain from what's been knocked loose - in that order.
with an obscure possibility of green support boosting, out of people just being fed up.
--
if you accept the basic premise that quebec is voting primarily with the purpose of a change of government, you could maybe construct a chain of logic with this spike in undecideds:
1) as the primary goal is a change of power, these voters would swing ndp or liberal depending on who they believe is most likely to win.
2) but, if it seems as though the conservatives are winning, they may choose to vote for the bloc in protest.
that's maybe a bit optimistic, from an english-speaker in ontario. but, it might not be far from the truth.
i just have a hard time with this niqab narrative. and not just because i don't like it. the fact is that quebec just voted *against* these kinds of rules in the last provincial election.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-challenged-over-niqab-pipelines-on-tout-le-monde-en-parle-1.3256496
NDP returns to its natural ranking 3rd Place. Orange Flush
You like your own posts don't you.. NDP Egomaniac
jessica murray
there's a character limit, it's not my fault.
and, fwiw, i'm to the left of the spectrum. i'd like to see public initiatives to automate local growing, for example. immediate halt to all tar sands production. and, i'd propose re-nationalizing the wheat board as my first act. the greens are probably closest to where i sit, but i'm probably going to vote liberal. i'm very uncomfortable with the ndp's swing to the right.
oh. wait. you meant to suggest i press "like" on my own posts, rather than that i like to reply to my own posts.
i actually really have problems with this like/dislike upvoting system. i'm just thinking back to english class in high school. it was really drilled into me that an opinion is worthless unless it is accompanied by an argument. which is not to discard certain opinions; you can argue anything. but, the value is in the argument, rather than the opinion.
i don't "like" *anything*. anywhere. not on facebook. not on youtube. never, ever. and, for my own content, i disable ratings whenever and wherever i can. if i have an opinion, i post a response; i expect people to post responses to my own content, rather than just rate it.
i could go on with this. i think it's actually kind of frightening, in the way that it threatens to reduce the level of discourse on just about every topic. i don't have a general issue with the internet; i'm not going to argue that technology, itself, is making us illiterate. but things like 100 character limits and upvoting are giant steps backwards. a little more thought needs to be put into it.
of course, advertisers will see it differently. they don't care. they want easy to analyze data.
but, that means that, no, i don't like my own posts. or anybody else's, either.
you know, i would have expected sarah silverman to support the conservatives. i'm shocked. really.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sarah-silverman-endorses-tom-mulcair-and-ndp-candidate-in-vancouver-1.3256425
BuckNaked
I would have expected her to support the Liberals.
jessica murray
she's endorsing her friend and likely has essentially no idea what she's talking about. it doesn't deserve a headline.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/sarah-silverman-endorses-tom-mulcair-and-ndp-candidate-in-vancouver-1.3256425
BuckNaked
I would have expected her to support the Liberals.
jessica murray
she's endorsing her friend and likely has essentially no idea what she's talking about. it doesn't deserve a headline.
Alberta bound1
Canada is a trading nation. Based upon the negative comments here - quite a few people seem to think that Canada cannot compete globally. I completely reject that thought - as I feel that once we promote our competitive industries we can compete with anybody. I agree that certain sectors will be very challenged - but they would be challenged even without this deal.
deathtokoalas
it's not the trading aspect that the left opposes. if this were actually a free trade deal, the left would support it; in canada, protectionism is associated with the historical right. rather, we're concerned about the other aspects of the deal. for example, the rights it gives to foreign investors to sue governments. that's not trade.
the google search term is investor-state dispute settlement. you won't hear the ndp talk about this, and you have to look hard in the media to find a discussion of it. but, this is the primary crux of disagreement, the core of the protests. nobody on the left cares about supply management for dairy; those farmers are overwhelming conservative voters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/canadian-business-owners-applaud-signing-of-tpp/article26648406/
Canada is a trading nation. Based upon the negative comments here - quite a few people seem to think that Canada cannot compete globally. I completely reject that thought - as I feel that once we promote our competitive industries we can compete with anybody. I agree that certain sectors will be very challenged - but they would be challenged even without this deal.
deathtokoalas
it's not the trading aspect that the left opposes. if this were actually a free trade deal, the left would support it; in canada, protectionism is associated with the historical right. rather, we're concerned about the other aspects of the deal. for example, the rights it gives to foreign investors to sue governments. that's not trade.
the google search term is investor-state dispute settlement. you won't hear the ndp talk about this, and you have to look hard in the media to find a discussion of it. but, this is the primary crux of disagreement, the core of the protests. nobody on the left cares about supply management for dairy; those farmers are overwhelming conservative voters.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/canadian-business-owners-applaud-signing-of-tpp/article26648406/
see, under normal circumstance, the ndp would be nailing the liberals on this, and i'd probably be voting ndp. instead, the ndp have spent most of the election trying to position themselves to the right of the liberals, and have only backtracked in the last couple of days on "supply management" - something that is meaningless in urban canada. maybe it's a generational gap, but i have little interest in defending the interests of these dairy farmers, who have forced us to endure stephen harper and the bloc quebecois. maybe putting them out of business will be good for the country. forcing them to sell their farms and sending them to the cities sounds like a good idea, if it means breaking up the conservative base. although, i hardly think that's likely; three week old curdled milk from new zealand isn't much of a threat to canadian dairy farmers, i don't think.
i actually buy canadian grown soy milk, anyways.
nobody really thinks the liberals are going to oppose this, do they? see, the benefit of having the liberals in power during the negotiation process would have been that they would have been far more likely to argue against certain things that are not in our interest. we're definitely better off having the liberals negotiate these things. but, mulroney tied our hands with a bad nafta deal, and now it looks like harper is about to tie our hands with a bad tpp deal. for once, it would be nice to get a deal that the liberals had some influence in. as it is, they will sign the deal, even if there are things they don't like about it - because they are pragmatists.
but, the ndp are going to do exactly the same thing. this is a difference, but c'est la vie. so, it's essentially a non-issue. what should be the biggest issue on the table is supported by all three major parties.
of all the things mulcair has failed the left on, it his absolute failure in presenting a principle opposition to the tpp that is the absolute worst. not a word on so-called property rights. not a word on so-called investors rights. not a word on prescription costs. why? because he doesn't oppose any of it. he's on side with it. all we've got is a cynical attempt to win traditionally right-leaning votes by promising to protect supply management.
if this really bugs you, you only have one option: the green party. they are the only party that credibly opposes the agreement.
i'm taking the position that it's a non-issue because the three parties have the same position, that it needs to be opposed using other means and that my voting decisions will have to be based on other concerns.
but, technically? sure: wait and see is the correctly logically coherent position. but, there's really little doubt that the reality is that it will have to be exceedingly poorly written for the liberals to reject it. it's so obscure, you can more or less ignore it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/04/liberal-rally-brampton-trudeau_n_8241412.html
i actually buy canadian grown soy milk, anyways.
nobody really thinks the liberals are going to oppose this, do they? see, the benefit of having the liberals in power during the negotiation process would have been that they would have been far more likely to argue against certain things that are not in our interest. we're definitely better off having the liberals negotiate these things. but, mulroney tied our hands with a bad nafta deal, and now it looks like harper is about to tie our hands with a bad tpp deal. for once, it would be nice to get a deal that the liberals had some influence in. as it is, they will sign the deal, even if there are things they don't like about it - because they are pragmatists.
but, the ndp are going to do exactly the same thing. this is a difference, but c'est la vie. so, it's essentially a non-issue. what should be the biggest issue on the table is supported by all three major parties.
of all the things mulcair has failed the left on, it his absolute failure in presenting a principle opposition to the tpp that is the absolute worst. not a word on so-called property rights. not a word on so-called investors rights. not a word on prescription costs. why? because he doesn't oppose any of it. he's on side with it. all we've got is a cynical attempt to win traditionally right-leaning votes by promising to protect supply management.
if this really bugs you, you only have one option: the green party. they are the only party that credibly opposes the agreement.
i'm taking the position that it's a non-issue because the three parties have the same position, that it needs to be opposed using other means and that my voting decisions will have to be based on other concerns.
but, technically? sure: wait and see is the correctly logically coherent position. but, there's really little doubt that the reality is that it will have to be exceedingly poorly written for the liberals to reject it. it's so obscure, you can more or less ignore it.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/04/liberal-rally-brampton-trudeau_n_8241412.html
see, here's the thing...
listen to putin. and then find a speech by chavez, or castro or perhaps khrushchev, even. what you should immediately see is that putin is a different kind of foe; he's what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror, or at least what we fancy we see in ourselves, looking back.
there's so much talk of russian recklessness and demonization of them as evil incarnate....
...but, for years, i've been amazed - astounded - at how remarkably passive the russians have been in the face of unprecedented aggression against them. through aggressive western action after aggressive western action, they just sat and waited for the leadership to change.
and, it seems that, even with a long overdue assertion of greater influence, they are still holding to the same fundamental line. the russians legitimately believe that it is only a matter of time before the neo-cons are removed, and that relations will finally improve once this happens. they are honestly, legitimately and patiently waiting for a peace movement to take power.
i'm not exactly a pacifist. i think defense is legitimate, where warranted. but, i strongly dislike violence. and, even i'm amazed at this placement of faith in american democracy, and have essentially no label for it besides naivete, even as i'm out there marching.
it's a hard truth, but what got us through the height of the cold war was not mutual trust but the reality of mutually assured destruction. there's a part of me that hopes the russians are right, that there's some daylight on the other side of some electoral event, that the re-establishment of trust is just around the corner. but, even bernie sanders is a hawk. i see no path to this end.
if you value world peace and stability, the reality of american ambitions necessitates the reassertion of mad in a way that american military strategists and politicians can clearly understand. the russians clearly dislike this. but, they're also clearly - if slowly - coming to the unavoidable conclusion.
they really don't want this. but, we've left them with no choice. and, we should maybe all reflect on this.
listen to putin. and then find a speech by chavez, or castro or perhaps khrushchev, even. what you should immediately see is that putin is a different kind of foe; he's what we see when we look at ourselves in the mirror, or at least what we fancy we see in ourselves, looking back.
there's so much talk of russian recklessness and demonization of them as evil incarnate....
...but, for years, i've been amazed - astounded - at how remarkably passive the russians have been in the face of unprecedented aggression against them. through aggressive western action after aggressive western action, they just sat and waited for the leadership to change.
and, it seems that, even with a long overdue assertion of greater influence, they are still holding to the same fundamental line. the russians legitimately believe that it is only a matter of time before the neo-cons are removed, and that relations will finally improve once this happens. they are honestly, legitimately and patiently waiting for a peace movement to take power.
i'm not exactly a pacifist. i think defense is legitimate, where warranted. but, i strongly dislike violence. and, even i'm amazed at this placement of faith in american democracy, and have essentially no label for it besides naivete, even as i'm out there marching.
it's a hard truth, but what got us through the height of the cold war was not mutual trust but the reality of mutually assured destruction. there's a part of me that hopes the russians are right, that there's some daylight on the other side of some electoral event, that the re-establishment of trust is just around the corner. but, even bernie sanders is a hawk. i see no path to this end.
if you value world peace and stability, the reality of american ambitions necessitates the reassertion of mad in a way that american military strategists and politicians can clearly understand. the russians clearly dislike this. but, they're also clearly - if slowly - coming to the unavoidable conclusion.
they really don't want this. but, we've left them with no choice. and, we should maybe all reflect on this.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
i don't want to come to the defense of capitalism, or claim it's the end of history or something, but let's be real about this debate for a minute, and try and see it from the viewpoints of the average person; the average worker.
we're worse off than we were in the nineteenth century. well, if that's not what you mean, then why say it?
i'm imagining what my grandmother would say if i called her up and suggested that i'm worse off than people were in the nineteenth century. after a hearty chuckle, i'd no doubt get a story about walking to school in a blizzard. and perhaps a query as to when they stopped teaching dickens.
but, my grandmother would be right. i recognize that i have a certain privilege, as a canadian, but i don't think i'm overstepping my bounds. i live in a seventy-five year old building that's a little run down in a poor neighbourhood of town; this is certainly better than anything comparable in the nineteenth century. i might see the odd roach, but there's no rats. there's no floods in the spring. there's functioning plumbing. a stove. a fridge. heat. electricity. and, that's all included in the rent.
food is never scarce, ever, and while i've had to live on fortified spaghetti and vitamin supplements for stretches when i was in university (how many lower class kids in the nineteenth century got that chance?), and have used a food bank a handful of times, i've never been in serious threat of starvation.
so, is this a serious argument? then, why expect people to take it seriously?
the income inequality argument is homo economicus. it's the idea that we're all seeking the same thing, and feel cheated by having less than our neighbour; rational self-interest. i don't buy it.
and, you start poking people in the eyes with this unnecessarily, as you have no chance but to sound like a communist.
rather than speak of something most people don't care about in terms most likely to mobilize opponents, why not try and hit some common ground to start and instead talk about poverty rates.
forget about how far the top is from the bottom. focus more on the distance between the bottom and living in tragedy. that is, the issue here is quality of life.
i don't want a yacht or a mansion. i'm happy with necessities dealt with, and some spare time for art. and, i think i'm most people.
again: the point i'm trying to make is that comparing medians and looking at relative growth is not convincing, and is especially not convincing to the people that are being most affected, who do not care. when you have to go out of your way to convince somebody that they're being oppressed, are they really?
the error being made is the assumption of the homo economicus model, complete with the protestant work ethic. there is no "american dream" without homo economicus and protestant work ethic. and, because there is no homo economicus and no protestant work ethic, there is consequently no american dream. that is, americans have different dreams - dreams that are more practical.
i don't dream about "success", whatever that even means. i dream about stability. to have necessities met. to have time to spend. you can't eat money. you can't spend time with it, either. it's a largely meaningless component in determining actual quality of life.
and, you're left with a hopeless future in pushing this argument: ivory tower intellectuals waving studies around trying to incite the working poor who stare blankly back and say "these are not my priorities".
i am a poor person. i am a working class person. take me seriously. income inequality is not a good argument for the exact reason that it is relative. absolute levels of poverty are a good argument for the exact reason that it is not relative. we can understand arguments when they are presented in absolute terms; we can conceive of immediate, meaningful changes. we can understand what you're saying. discussions of income inequality on relative terms are too abstract, too hard to understand, too disconnected from reality. and, the end is not of importance.
i don't care how many yachts some douchebag across the world has. i care about whether my neighbours have what they require. and, when i organize and fight and do activist things, it is not to take things away from others - it is to ensure that the people i see in front of me have what they are and ought to be entitled to.
we're worse off than we were in the nineteenth century. well, if that's not what you mean, then why say it?
i'm imagining what my grandmother would say if i called her up and suggested that i'm worse off than people were in the nineteenth century. after a hearty chuckle, i'd no doubt get a story about walking to school in a blizzard. and perhaps a query as to when they stopped teaching dickens.
but, my grandmother would be right. i recognize that i have a certain privilege, as a canadian, but i don't think i'm overstepping my bounds. i live in a seventy-five year old building that's a little run down in a poor neighbourhood of town; this is certainly better than anything comparable in the nineteenth century. i might see the odd roach, but there's no rats. there's no floods in the spring. there's functioning plumbing. a stove. a fridge. heat. electricity. and, that's all included in the rent.
food is never scarce, ever, and while i've had to live on fortified spaghetti and vitamin supplements for stretches when i was in university (how many lower class kids in the nineteenth century got that chance?), and have used a food bank a handful of times, i've never been in serious threat of starvation.
so, is this a serious argument? then, why expect people to take it seriously?
the income inequality argument is homo economicus. it's the idea that we're all seeking the same thing, and feel cheated by having less than our neighbour; rational self-interest. i don't buy it.
and, you start poking people in the eyes with this unnecessarily, as you have no chance but to sound like a communist.
rather than speak of something most people don't care about in terms most likely to mobilize opponents, why not try and hit some common ground to start and instead talk about poverty rates.
forget about how far the top is from the bottom. focus more on the distance between the bottom and living in tragedy. that is, the issue here is quality of life.
i don't want a yacht or a mansion. i'm happy with necessities dealt with, and some spare time for art. and, i think i'm most people.
again: the point i'm trying to make is that comparing medians and looking at relative growth is not convincing, and is especially not convincing to the people that are being most affected, who do not care. when you have to go out of your way to convince somebody that they're being oppressed, are they really?
the error being made is the assumption of the homo economicus model, complete with the protestant work ethic. there is no "american dream" without homo economicus and protestant work ethic. and, because there is no homo economicus and no protestant work ethic, there is consequently no american dream. that is, americans have different dreams - dreams that are more practical.
i don't dream about "success", whatever that even means. i dream about stability. to have necessities met. to have time to spend. you can't eat money. you can't spend time with it, either. it's a largely meaningless component in determining actual quality of life.
and, you're left with a hopeless future in pushing this argument: ivory tower intellectuals waving studies around trying to incite the working poor who stare blankly back and say "these are not my priorities".
i am a poor person. i am a working class person. take me seriously. income inequality is not a good argument for the exact reason that it is relative. absolute levels of poverty are a good argument for the exact reason that it is not relative. we can understand arguments when they are presented in absolute terms; we can conceive of immediate, meaningful changes. we can understand what you're saying. discussions of income inequality on relative terms are too abstract, too hard to understand, too disconnected from reality. and, the end is not of importance.
i don't care how many yachts some douchebag across the world has. i care about whether my neighbours have what they require. and, when i organize and fight and do activist things, it is not to take things away from others - it is to ensure that the people i see in front of me have what they are and ought to be entitled to.
canadian values are written in the charter. there is no contradiction. stop giving a platform to extremists.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-charter-and-niqab-analysis-1.3254167
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-charter-and-niqab-analysis-1.3254167
Saturday, October 3, 2015
you see this question come up all of the time: why doesn't the working class organize itself better, anyways?
it's maybe an example of how sometimes answers are so obvious that you can't see them. or maybe an example of the disconnect between intellectuals and workers. but, it's actually not hard to figure out if you've ever had to work these kinds of jobs.
they're simply too busy working.
bakunin realized this and suggested that revolts had to come from the unemployed. and, if you look carefully at successful and unsuccessful revolts, you'll see he was mostly right.
it's maybe an example of how sometimes answers are so obvious that you can't see them. or maybe an example of the disconnect between intellectuals and workers. but, it's actually not hard to figure out if you've ever had to work these kinds of jobs.
they're simply too busy working.
bakunin realized this and suggested that revolts had to come from the unemployed. and, if you look carefully at successful and unsuccessful revolts, you'll see he was mostly right.
i think the more important question to ask is why it is that we continue to rely on neo-colonial economics to create goods.
even up here in canada, it would not be difficult to create greenhouses to grow coffee in. and, because the process can be mostly automated, the decrease in costs [both in terms of production and in terms of transportation] should actually cut the price.
but, instead of focusing on food security, we're signing global trade agreements that are seeking to cement mercantilist relationships that don't make any sense.
you don't need to listen to the hippies, either. ask investors and major food-producing corporations. they'll tell you the same thing.
even up here in canada, it would not be difficult to create greenhouses to grow coffee in. and, because the process can be mostly automated, the decrease in costs [both in terms of production and in terms of transportation] should actually cut the price.
but, instead of focusing on food security, we're signing global trade agreements that are seeking to cement mercantilist relationships that don't make any sense.
you don't need to listen to the hippies, either. ask investors and major food-producing corporations. they'll tell you the same thing.
see, why do they sell us young "thugs"?
why don't they sell us young "respectable educated professionals"?
you don't have to change the means of expression. it would maybe be nice if you could introduce a topic of some relevance. but it's really not necessarily a major overhaul in presentation, despite possibly having large changes in cultural outcomes. and, i don't mean putting them in a suit and putting them behind a bank teller, either. there's enough bling floating around already, and it's really a part of the problem. a respectable educated professional could be a doctor or an engineer - but it could also be a history major, or a student of musicology. it's just not a fucking thug.
then, we sit around and wonder what's wrong with the kids. it's really no secret. they're what they're raised to be.
why don't they sell us young "respectable educated professionals"?
you don't have to change the means of expression. it would maybe be nice if you could introduce a topic of some relevance. but it's really not necessarily a major overhaul in presentation, despite possibly having large changes in cultural outcomes. and, i don't mean putting them in a suit and putting them behind a bank teller, either. there's enough bling floating around already, and it's really a part of the problem. a respectable educated professional could be a doctor or an engineer - but it could also be a history major, or a student of musicology. it's just not a fucking thug.
then, we sit around and wonder what's wrong with the kids. it's really no secret. they're what they're raised to be.
i've heard some beatles and floyd interpretations that are actually pretty good, but this really just underscores how simplistic the piece is. that said, this does have a lot more potential than is present here. the key is in breaking up the monotony and repetition in the melody. it makes even the most boring mozart piece sound interesting, and mozart is really a pretty low bar in 2015.
it's good enough to be the soundtrack to a kids movie, but that's about it.
http://www.youtube.com/comment?lc=ofkygx89dBAuEPi0CpuUB6ftpAi5w0GIFVeMXVt2JsI
it's good enough to be the soundtrack to a kids movie, but that's about it.
http://www.youtube.com/comment?lc=ofkygx89dBAuEPi0CpuUB6ftpAi5w0GIFVeMXVt2JsI
the reputable telephone pollsters, almost without exception, had the conservatives somewhere in the (27,33) range at the start of the campaign - that's about 30%, +-/3. today, the reputable pollsters have the conservatives in exactly the same range. you'll see the odd 25-26 or the odd 34-35, pretty much randomly - outliers. there has been no statistically measurable change in conservative support, and therefore no reason to draw conclusions about a bump that hasn't actually happened. but, there has been a pretty big movement between the ndp and the liberals.
i think that, in the end, this will hurt them. they've finally shown themselves for who they are. but, even so, they don't go much lower than 30.
this was always an election between the ndp and the liberals, and this is still true. but, the split is brutal. if he's winning, it's on the worst split, yet; we've never seen them split 30/30 like this.
there's no culture war. there's just a huge split in the opposition.
i mean, you lose 10% over the previous election and that's a successful tactic?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservatives-barbaric-cultural-practices-1.3254886
RareRationalism
I would not deem it 'a war', but I would deem it a cultural reawakening.
jessica murray
lol.
i repeat: there is no evidence that this tactic is working.
maybe harper can dust off some old borden signs, as a part of this "cultural reawakening" and put them up in downtown vancouver.
HARPER: FOR A WHITE CANADA
bet that'll go over well in the vancouver and toronto ridings he's required to win to form a government.
just don't tell anybody about the underground railroad, though. warps the narrative.
--
ok. found the question.
" As you may know, the Government of Canada has issued a direction requiring people to show their faces when they are being sworn in as Canadian citizens. This direction means that face coverings, such as niqabs or burqas, are not permitted during Canadian citizenship ceremonies. Do you support or oppose a requirement that people show their face during Canadian citizenship ceremonies?"
support: 82%
oppose: 15%
don't know: 4%
what is the main reason you support?
1) For identification purposes 29%
2) It's just a cultural practice / doesn't infringe on religious rights / freedom 8%
3) For security reasons / concerns 6%
4) Disrespect for our cultural norms / social practices (showing ones faces, beign unmasked, etc.) 14%
5) To follow our laws / rules 11%
6) Discriminates women / detrimental to women / sexist 2%
7) Shows that one adopts Canadian culture / becomes a Canadian citizen 12%
so, this is actually a leading question.
first, they tell you it's against the law. then they ask you if the law should be followed. well, do you believe in law or not? most people don't follow the issue all that closely - of course they agree with the law. there's two responses, then - those that agree the law should be upheld, and those that have some kind of "values" based response - although whatever values these are, they are not canadian values.
for those that are simply saying the law should be followed, we have: 1, 2, 3, 5. that's 54. these people are not actually in opposition to anything except people breaking the law; and that takes the total up 69% opposed.
4,6,7 are the real opposition that the conservatives are supposedly trying to mobilize, although 6 is contentious. and, unsurprisingly, that adds up 28% - the conservative base, +/- a bit.
no wonder there's been no poll movement.
this isn't a winning strategy for the conservatives.
Kevan Brown
You shouldn't have pointed that out, it was keeping them busy and distracted.
jessica murray
i find the narrative embarrassing.
this morning's nanos poll puts the liberals at 43% in ontario, and 34% nationwide - and the conservatives at 30% nationally. the supposed conservative uptick in quebec is gone; it seems to have just been randomness in the data.
it would be nice to hear the media pick up on the idea of canadians rejecting the racist electoral strategy of the conservative party.
i think that, in the end, this will hurt them. they've finally shown themselves for who they are. but, even so, they don't go much lower than 30.
this was always an election between the ndp and the liberals, and this is still true. but, the split is brutal. if he's winning, it's on the worst split, yet; we've never seen them split 30/30 like this.
there's no culture war. there's just a huge split in the opposition.
i mean, you lose 10% over the previous election and that's a successful tactic?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservatives-barbaric-cultural-practices-1.3254886
RareRationalism
I would not deem it 'a war', but I would deem it a cultural reawakening.
jessica murray
lol.
i repeat: there is no evidence that this tactic is working.
maybe harper can dust off some old borden signs, as a part of this "cultural reawakening" and put them up in downtown vancouver.
HARPER: FOR A WHITE CANADA
bet that'll go over well in the vancouver and toronto ridings he's required to win to form a government.
just don't tell anybody about the underground railroad, though. warps the narrative.
--
ok. found the question.
" As you may know, the Government of Canada has issued a direction requiring people to show their faces when they are being sworn in as Canadian citizens. This direction means that face coverings, such as niqabs or burqas, are not permitted during Canadian citizenship ceremonies. Do you support or oppose a requirement that people show their face during Canadian citizenship ceremonies?"
support: 82%
oppose: 15%
don't know: 4%
what is the main reason you support?
1) For identification purposes 29%
2) It's just a cultural practice / doesn't infringe on religious rights / freedom 8%
3) For security reasons / concerns 6%
4) Disrespect for our cultural norms / social practices (showing ones faces, beign unmasked, etc.) 14%
5) To follow our laws / rules 11%
6) Discriminates women / detrimental to women / sexist 2%
7) Shows that one adopts Canadian culture / becomes a Canadian citizen 12%
so, this is actually a leading question.
first, they tell you it's against the law. then they ask you if the law should be followed. well, do you believe in law or not? most people don't follow the issue all that closely - of course they agree with the law. there's two responses, then - those that agree the law should be upheld, and those that have some kind of "values" based response - although whatever values these are, they are not canadian values.
for those that are simply saying the law should be followed, we have: 1, 2, 3, 5. that's 54. these people are not actually in opposition to anything except people breaking the law; and that takes the total up 69% opposed.
4,6,7 are the real opposition that the conservatives are supposedly trying to mobilize, although 6 is contentious. and, unsurprisingly, that adds up 28% - the conservative base, +/- a bit.
no wonder there's been no poll movement.
this isn't a winning strategy for the conservatives.
Kevan Brown
You shouldn't have pointed that out, it was keeping them busy and distracted.
jessica murray
i find the narrative embarrassing.
this morning's nanos poll puts the liberals at 43% in ontario, and 34% nationwide - and the conservatives at 30% nationally. the supposed conservative uptick in quebec is gone; it seems to have just been randomness in the data.
it would be nice to hear the media pick up on the idea of canadians rejecting the racist electoral strategy of the conservative party.
it took me by surprise when mulcair came out in favour of the tpp a few weeks ago out of a clear attempt to appear more centrist; now, he's changed his mind as a clear electoral strategy. he's in favour of it if he thinks it will win him votes, and opposed to it if he thinks it will win him votes.
in principle, i think that opposing the tpp is the correct electoral strategy. it will get them the most seats. but, what will they actually do?
see, i'm not opposed to people changing their minds; i'm not into "strong leadership", i'm into fact-based analysis. but, the result of the party changing it's mind twice now, both times obviously to position themselves to win votes, is that i still don't know where they stand. this was one of the first questions i put down: where do they stand on this?
if they are to be taken at their word, the fact that they haven't read it means they actually don't know what their position is on the deal. if i'm really into fact-based analysis, that actually sounds good in principle.
but, i couldn't imagine them claiming they support it, then rejecting it. i could imagine them coming up with an obfuscated position that makes it seem like they oppose it unless you're paying close attention, and then supporting it. as it is, the only specifics i've heard are with supply management. so, does that mean he'll support it if it has some language about supply management that he likes, forcing maude barlow to issue a press release correcting his language? i don't have a crystal ball or anything, but the future is sometimes easily predictable.
give me a flow chart. put your conditions down. tpp is not conscription; you can't do this, not necessarily thing, it's too complicated. give me your conditions and let me see if i agree with them....
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-trade-ndp-1.3255051
in principle, i think that opposing the tpp is the correct electoral strategy. it will get them the most seats. but, what will they actually do?
see, i'm not opposed to people changing their minds; i'm not into "strong leadership", i'm into fact-based analysis. but, the result of the party changing it's mind twice now, both times obviously to position themselves to win votes, is that i still don't know where they stand. this was one of the first questions i put down: where do they stand on this?
if they are to be taken at their word, the fact that they haven't read it means they actually don't know what their position is on the deal. if i'm really into fact-based analysis, that actually sounds good in principle.
but, i couldn't imagine them claiming they support it, then rejecting it. i could imagine them coming up with an obfuscated position that makes it seem like they oppose it unless you're paying close attention, and then supporting it. as it is, the only specifics i've heard are with supply management. so, does that mean he'll support it if it has some language about supply management that he likes, forcing maude barlow to issue a press release correcting his language? i don't have a crystal ball or anything, but the future is sometimes easily predictable.
give me a flow chart. put your conditions down. tpp is not conscription; you can't do this, not necessarily thing, it's too complicated. give me your conditions and let me see if i agree with them....
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tpp-trade-ndp-1.3255051
i'm going to call in and report thanksgiving.
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/canada-conservatives-barbaric-cultural-practices-hotline#comments
www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/02/canada-conservatives-barbaric-cultural-practices-hotline#comments
Friday, October 2, 2015
more screwy right-wing market language from the so-called left.
hiring decisions are not determined by profits. that is reaganomics - thoroughly debunked. rather, they're determined by demand. cutting wages (or increasing them, as you may) can consequently never lead to layoffs, as that does not affect demand. in fact, that would actually decrease profits by making it harder to reach demand; that is, it would send patients elsewhere and reduce total profits in the process. simply put, it would be stupid. almost nobody will do this, and those that do deserve what they get.
reducing doctor's wages will have no effect on anything except reducing doctor's wages, which i think they can handle just fine. and, if they don't want to see a total decrease in pay? i suppose they'll just have to see more patients.
if they cut staff, they'll have to do the same amount of work with less people. there's no logic in this; it's just right-wing scare-mongering.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadia-alam/ontario-liberal-healthcare-plan-problems_b_8211512.html
Nadia Alam
Hi Jessica, thank you for reading. I did want to point out a few things:
1. Cutting physician wages does lead to layoffs. Like I said, a physician's office is like a small business. When you cut a physician's wage, they can no longer afford the "extras" of paying for administrative staff, secretaries, nurses, etc. Before a physician closes their office, they will try to make do with less so that they can at least continue to pay for the physical space of the office. And when that doesn't work, they will close the office. Just like some of the family physicians' offices that have closed north of northern Ontario; just like some of the addiction centers that have closed in Toronto; just like some cardiology centers and radiology centers have closed in Southwestern Ontario. This is already happening. Saying that "it isn't so" doesn't change the fact.
2. Physicians cannot work more to earn more. When we see more patients, we bill more, and the government has told us we are not allowed to bill more. The Liberals have put a cap, a limit, on our services, one that we are not allowed to go over. What do you think will happen when we reach this set limit? Physicians will stop seeing patients.
3. There's no logic in doing the same amount of work with less people. You're right. But physicians will try for a little while. The majority of us aren't in this for the money. To be honest, there are other jobs that pay just as well and are much less stressful. However, medicine is a calling for many of us. We love our patients. We love our work. So we will try to make do -- up to a certain point. When we can't bear watching our patients struggle under office inefficiencies resulting from "doing the same amount of work with less people", we will eventually exhaust ourselves and give up.
This happened in the 1990s during the Rae days. It is happening again. Stop trying to deny it.
jessica amber murray
that's not how small businesses work, either. maybe you're bringing up a valid point: maybe doctors ought to take courses in business management, so they don't make these kinds of management errors.
to be blunt, i do not think that you are making an honest argument and don't wish to waste my time on somebody that is being disingenuous. but if i am wrong, and you are serious, i would advise you take some courses in small business management.
i do, however, agree that a cap is a bad idea. i mean, i could see how it might be a good idea if there was concern that doctors were shuffling people in and out, but i'm not aware of that being brought up by anybody and think it's sort of outlandish. i may even argue that it's unconstitutional. if the government is that concerned, it needs to raise revenue and/or cut salaries even further. caps should be a non-starter.
Nadia Alam
We have been tracking how the cuts have affected physicians since they were escalated on October 1. Despite your assertions Ms. Murray that this would never happen, as office revenue (euphemistically called "salary" by the government) drops, physicians are cutting costs to keep their offices open so that they can continue to see patients. When that fails, they cut down on all non-essential staff. When that fails, they close their office. Here is a link to a page that shows which offices have closed in Ontario as of October 10.
https://www.facebook.com/concernedontariodoctors
Please note, this map shows what's happened in less than a month. What do you think will happen if the government continues the cuts to healthcare?
jessica amber murray
they're not cutting health care. they're cutting your salaries. you're cutting health care.
i think we need to take a step back, though. you were arguing that reductions in doctors salaries will lead to cuts in administration jobs. i pointed out that that did not make any sense, because it would not come with a decrease in demand. in response, you've sent me an infographic that suggests that some practices are closing altogether. that's a different argument, and i wouldn't have argued against that as strenuously; i might have suggested that it would be minimal, under the assumption that most doctors are not that greedy. and, i might suggest that you rethink your pr strategy. the idea that what remains a six figure salary is too low to bother practicing reflects very poorly on your profession, especially considering the economic reality right now in this province.
regarding policy, i would suggest that the provincial government work with the federal government to recruit more doctors from outside the country. there's lots of people in the world that would jump at the opportunity to practice medicine in ontario. i'm sorry that what we have to offer is not good enough for you.
Rohan Patel
Do you think you can cut people's salaries and have there be NO effect on healthcare?
jessica amber murray
yes.
they're overpaid.
hiring decisions are not determined by profits. that is reaganomics - thoroughly debunked. rather, they're determined by demand. cutting wages (or increasing them, as you may) can consequently never lead to layoffs, as that does not affect demand. in fact, that would actually decrease profits by making it harder to reach demand; that is, it would send patients elsewhere and reduce total profits in the process. simply put, it would be stupid. almost nobody will do this, and those that do deserve what they get.
reducing doctor's wages will have no effect on anything except reducing doctor's wages, which i think they can handle just fine. and, if they don't want to see a total decrease in pay? i suppose they'll just have to see more patients.
if they cut staff, they'll have to do the same amount of work with less people. there's no logic in this; it's just right-wing scare-mongering.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadia-alam/ontario-liberal-healthcare-plan-problems_b_8211512.html
Nadia Alam
Hi Jessica, thank you for reading. I did want to point out a few things:
1. Cutting physician wages does lead to layoffs. Like I said, a physician's office is like a small business. When you cut a physician's wage, they can no longer afford the "extras" of paying for administrative staff, secretaries, nurses, etc. Before a physician closes their office, they will try to make do with less so that they can at least continue to pay for the physical space of the office. And when that doesn't work, they will close the office. Just like some of the family physicians' offices that have closed north of northern Ontario; just like some of the addiction centers that have closed in Toronto; just like some cardiology centers and radiology centers have closed in Southwestern Ontario. This is already happening. Saying that "it isn't so" doesn't change the fact.
2. Physicians cannot work more to earn more. When we see more patients, we bill more, and the government has told us we are not allowed to bill more. The Liberals have put a cap, a limit, on our services, one that we are not allowed to go over. What do you think will happen when we reach this set limit? Physicians will stop seeing patients.
3. There's no logic in doing the same amount of work with less people. You're right. But physicians will try for a little while. The majority of us aren't in this for the money. To be honest, there are other jobs that pay just as well and are much less stressful. However, medicine is a calling for many of us. We love our patients. We love our work. So we will try to make do -- up to a certain point. When we can't bear watching our patients struggle under office inefficiencies resulting from "doing the same amount of work with less people", we will eventually exhaust ourselves and give up.
This happened in the 1990s during the Rae days. It is happening again. Stop trying to deny it.
jessica amber murray
that's not how small businesses work, either. maybe you're bringing up a valid point: maybe doctors ought to take courses in business management, so they don't make these kinds of management errors.
to be blunt, i do not think that you are making an honest argument and don't wish to waste my time on somebody that is being disingenuous. but if i am wrong, and you are serious, i would advise you take some courses in small business management.
i do, however, agree that a cap is a bad idea. i mean, i could see how it might be a good idea if there was concern that doctors were shuffling people in and out, but i'm not aware of that being brought up by anybody and think it's sort of outlandish. i may even argue that it's unconstitutional. if the government is that concerned, it needs to raise revenue and/or cut salaries even further. caps should be a non-starter.
Nadia Alam
We have been tracking how the cuts have affected physicians since they were escalated on October 1. Despite your assertions Ms. Murray that this would never happen, as office revenue (euphemistically called "salary" by the government) drops, physicians are cutting costs to keep their offices open so that they can continue to see patients. When that fails, they cut down on all non-essential staff. When that fails, they close their office. Here is a link to a page that shows which offices have closed in Ontario as of October 10.
https://www.facebook.com/concernedontariodoctors
Please note, this map shows what's happened in less than a month. What do you think will happen if the government continues the cuts to healthcare?
jessica amber murray
they're not cutting health care. they're cutting your salaries. you're cutting health care.
i think we need to take a step back, though. you were arguing that reductions in doctors salaries will lead to cuts in administration jobs. i pointed out that that did not make any sense, because it would not come with a decrease in demand. in response, you've sent me an infographic that suggests that some practices are closing altogether. that's a different argument, and i wouldn't have argued against that as strenuously; i might have suggested that it would be minimal, under the assumption that most doctors are not that greedy. and, i might suggest that you rethink your pr strategy. the idea that what remains a six figure salary is too low to bother practicing reflects very poorly on your profession, especially considering the economic reality right now in this province.
regarding policy, i would suggest that the provincial government work with the federal government to recruit more doctors from outside the country. there's lots of people in the world that would jump at the opportunity to practice medicine in ontario. i'm sorry that what we have to offer is not good enough for you.
Rohan Patel
Do you think you can cut people's salaries and have there be NO effect on healthcare?
jessica amber murray
yes.
they're overpaid.
The Puzzle Palace
I have no proof, and its only an opinion, but I suspect Harper set up Mulcair by trying to turn the niqab into an election issue.
Harper knew how unpopular the niqab was in Quebec - the NDP's current strong hold - and knew that Mulcair would come out in support of a woman's right to wear the niqab.
Looks like it worked, whether it was intentional or not. NDP are down in the polls from what I've seen.
jessica murray
you're no doubt right, but in the end it will likely prove a foolish strategy. it's the same ballot question as the last election in quebec (the quebec charter), and the pq lost the election on it. also, but the situation in context: the pq had just won the election on the backs of the student strike. marois should have had an easy ten years in power, at least, after that fiasco. but, she blew it by trying to force people to not wear the niqab.
i haven't seen the question. but, it's a good example of why we have a clarity act. because the following statements are going to yield vastly different responses:
1) i don't like the niqab. that will yield high agreement.
2) the niqab is oppressive. that will also yield high agreement.
3) i think people should be forced by law to take off the niqab, and face penalties if they refuse to. that will yield broad disagreement.
if you commission a poll measuring 1 or 2, it can easily confuse you into deducing 3. further, it's very hard to campaign on 1 or 2 without having voters conclude that what you mean is 3.
the reality is that a large amount of federal conservative voters just voted against the charter in the last provincial election, and if this ends up framed the same way it's going to hurt them.
so, wait for the dust to settle. it may hurt the ndp, but then the bloc gain. and, any influx of caq voters is likely to be more than offset by a loss of liberal voters. in the end, it hurts the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
I have no proof, and its only an opinion, but I suspect Harper set up Mulcair by trying to turn the niqab into an election issue.
Harper knew how unpopular the niqab was in Quebec - the NDP's current strong hold - and knew that Mulcair would come out in support of a woman's right to wear the niqab.
Looks like it worked, whether it was intentional or not. NDP are down in the polls from what I've seen.
jessica murray
you're no doubt right, but in the end it will likely prove a foolish strategy. it's the same ballot question as the last election in quebec (the quebec charter), and the pq lost the election on it. also, but the situation in context: the pq had just won the election on the backs of the student strike. marois should have had an easy ten years in power, at least, after that fiasco. but, she blew it by trying to force people to not wear the niqab.
i haven't seen the question. but, it's a good example of why we have a clarity act. because the following statements are going to yield vastly different responses:
1) i don't like the niqab. that will yield high agreement.
2) the niqab is oppressive. that will also yield high agreement.
3) i think people should be forced by law to take off the niqab, and face penalties if they refuse to. that will yield broad disagreement.
if you commission a poll measuring 1 or 2, it can easily confuse you into deducing 3. further, it's very hard to campaign on 1 or 2 without having voters conclude that what you mean is 3.
the reality is that a large amount of federal conservative voters just voted against the charter in the last provincial election, and if this ends up framed the same way it's going to hurt them.
so, wait for the dust to settle. it may hurt the ndp, but then the bloc gain. and, any influx of caq voters is likely to be more than offset by a loss of liberal voters. in the end, it hurts the conservatives.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
bob h.
Lets talk about the real, biggest issue for a second.
Justin's father sold Canada out to private banks. We used to print our own money interest free for infrastructure before Justin's dad came into office. Then he illegally changed it so OUR BANK OF CANADA borrows AT INTEREST (instead of interest free as is mandated in the banks charter - See COMER v. Bank of Canada) from foreign private bankers instead of making our own cash like we did before Trudeau (1974). ALL of our tax dollars now go to foreign private bankers just to try and pay off illegal odious interest (debt), then if we want to do anything we have to borrow more at interest again, and again, and again. Forever debt slaves. P. Trudeau sold Canada out to banksters who then control the policy making through lobby/threats, and they also control much of the media narratives these days too.
Justin saying he wants to run a deficit is him pledging to continue selling us out to those foreign banking "elites" by borrowing more from them at high compounding interest; which will just increase our taxes, sale of Canada's land/resources/services to them at penny's on the dollar, and austerity. Those pricks make trillions from OUR TAX DOLLARS for doing nothing but bribing/buying/blackmailing/bullying our politicians.
Those that know, know Tom and May are aware of this scam and want it stopped. That's why they're slammed on CBC and Canadian MSM regularly. There hasn't been a positive story/light from CBC for anyone other than Justin/Harper for a long time. They're both bankers boys
jessica murray
this is a myth created by paul hellyer. canada has always financed most of it's deficit spending with private money. the bank of canada only funded specific types of infrastructure development. and, in fact, trudeau is proposing more bank of canada borrowing through his new green infrastructure bank.
there was a mild shift from public to private borrowing in the 70s as a consequence of a global agreement that took place after the collapse of bretton-woods. in canada, the shift was from around 20% to around 10%. minor.
and, in fact, trudeau rejected this logic in favour of traditional keynesian ideas on the relationship between employment and inflation. the actual reason that the debt exploded after 1975 is that interest rates were set very high (over 20% sometimes) in order to fight inflation, which was the mainstream economic theory of the day. the cause of this was the opec oil embargo.
there was never a structural debt-to-gdp imbalance during the trudeau years. we just ended up with huge interest payments because the interest rates were ridiculous. and even looking back, today, it's hard to provide a better answer.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
Lets talk about the real, biggest issue for a second.
Justin's father sold Canada out to private banks. We used to print our own money interest free for infrastructure before Justin's dad came into office. Then he illegally changed it so OUR BANK OF CANADA borrows AT INTEREST (instead of interest free as is mandated in the banks charter - See COMER v. Bank of Canada) from foreign private bankers instead of making our own cash like we did before Trudeau (1974). ALL of our tax dollars now go to foreign private bankers just to try and pay off illegal odious interest (debt), then if we want to do anything we have to borrow more at interest again, and again, and again. Forever debt slaves. P. Trudeau sold Canada out to banksters who then control the policy making through lobby/threats, and they also control much of the media narratives these days too.
Justin saying he wants to run a deficit is him pledging to continue selling us out to those foreign banking "elites" by borrowing more from them at high compounding interest; which will just increase our taxes, sale of Canada's land/resources/services to them at penny's on the dollar, and austerity. Those pricks make trillions from OUR TAX DOLLARS for doing nothing but bribing/buying/blackmailing/bullying our politicians.
Those that know, know Tom and May are aware of this scam and want it stopped. That's why they're slammed on CBC and Canadian MSM regularly. There hasn't been a positive story/light from CBC for anyone other than Justin/Harper for a long time. They're both bankers boys
jessica murray
this is a myth created by paul hellyer. canada has always financed most of it's deficit spending with private money. the bank of canada only funded specific types of infrastructure development. and, in fact, trudeau is proposing more bank of canada borrowing through his new green infrastructure bank.
there was a mild shift from public to private borrowing in the 70s as a consequence of a global agreement that took place after the collapse of bretton-woods. in canada, the shift was from around 20% to around 10%. minor.
and, in fact, trudeau rejected this logic in favour of traditional keynesian ideas on the relationship between employment and inflation. the actual reason that the debt exploded after 1975 is that interest rates were set very high (over 20% sometimes) in order to fight inflation, which was the mainstream economic theory of the day. the cause of this was the opec oil embargo.
there was never a structural debt-to-gdp imbalance during the trudeau years. we just ended up with huge interest payments because the interest rates were ridiculous. and even looking back, today, it's hard to provide a better answer.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
Animal Farm
only Justin Trudeau has the guts to stand up for a woman's right to choose. Harper and all his niqab BS refuses to declare his stance. he cares nothing about women's rights and everything about the politics of fear and bigotry.
Bogmer
I'm not a Harper supporter but Harper has killed a number of Bills from his own party on banning abortion. He even set up world wide clinics and paid for it so that women can do it safely around the world.
jessica murray
harper has actually cut funding for what is called "family planning" overseas. this is an extremely complex issue that has to take into account a variety of factors on both perspectives that are outside of the traditional western debate on the sanctity of life: the legacy of colonialism, the effects of local culture (including the import of colonial religions), global overpopulation, contraception, the greater prevalence of rape and general lack of gender equality, etc. i'd feel most comfortable with a policy that seeks to encourage changes in local governance, and pushes for contraception over abortion. but, i'm not comfortable with pulling funding for abortion on the basis of pulling funding for abortion, either.
that said, i'm not really concerned about harper regarding the question of abortion rights in canada. i *am* concerned about jason kenney, though. and, harper has indicated that he will not carry out this term. voters should not be lulled into a sense of complacency regarding harper's insistence on short-term moderation on social issues, while he tries to change the culture from the top down to create great public support for his policies. his successor will not be so patient.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
only Justin Trudeau has the guts to stand up for a woman's right to choose. Harper and all his niqab BS refuses to declare his stance. he cares nothing about women's rights and everything about the politics of fear and bigotry.
Bogmer
I'm not a Harper supporter but Harper has killed a number of Bills from his own party on banning abortion. He even set up world wide clinics and paid for it so that women can do it safely around the world.
jessica murray
harper has actually cut funding for what is called "family planning" overseas. this is an extremely complex issue that has to take into account a variety of factors on both perspectives that are outside of the traditional western debate on the sanctity of life: the legacy of colonialism, the effects of local culture (including the import of colonial religions), global overpopulation, contraception, the greater prevalence of rape and general lack of gender equality, etc. i'd feel most comfortable with a policy that seeks to encourage changes in local governance, and pushes for contraception over abortion. but, i'm not comfortable with pulling funding for abortion on the basis of pulling funding for abortion, either.
that said, i'm not really concerned about harper regarding the question of abortion rights in canada. i *am* concerned about jason kenney, though. and, harper has indicated that he will not carry out this term. voters should not be lulled into a sense of complacency regarding harper's insistence on short-term moderation on social issues, while he tries to change the culture from the top down to create great public support for his policies. his successor will not be so patient.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
duceppe is a good debater, and he zinged all three of them. mulcair is again great at articulating a terrible set of arguments that don't belong attached to the ndp, and trudeau is again saying the right things, if at times unconvincingly and often times smugly. and i couldn't care less what harper says. same old same old.
the duceppe factor is what is important, here. see, he can take positions the others can't because he's not actually running for prime minister. so, letting him into the debate immediately changes the narrative. he also has different swing issues with each of the other parties, fighting with harper for caq votes, trudeau for liberal votes (however unlikely) and mulcair for pq votes.
he got a few good ones in on trudeau, particularly relating to his more right-leaning positions. corporate taxes. free trade. these are the reasons that people like me would *like* to vote for the ndp, if their leader wasn't such an obvious conservative. then again, we all know the liberals are a bay street party. they're just unique, in being a fair bay street party. if that helps anyone, it's mulcair.
but, remember: everything is upside down in quebec. trudeau has little to gain from duceppe, but a lot to gain by sucking right-leaning provincial liberal support away from harper and mulcair. it's the right argument to make, in quebec. even if it leaves people like me gritting my teeth, and wishing the ndp hadn't fallen down the rabbit hole.
something strange happened about halfway through the debate, though. duceppe seemed to begin to subtly indicate, several times, that he was endorsing trudeau. it's just the way he presented things, to make trudeau appear in a more favourable light than mulcair. subtle? very. who knows if it gets picked up. but, it's there, and is likely reflective of internal bloc calculations. if you want to call them that. the bloc campaign at this point is not exactly highly funded.
so long as duceppe is showing up at these things, he is going to win almost every debate. he's just not as restricted in what he can do, and it gives him a massive advantage. but, i'm not convinced he's going to win very many seats. it's hard to guess how a four way split like this turns out....
i don't see an obvious winner, otherwise. duceppe maybe hit trudeau harder than he hit the other two. but, the nature of the quebec spectrum is such that it might actually help him. he seems to have hit harper off guard repeatedly, leaving him without any kind of coherent response: he just stated things unconvincingly. and, while mulcair was maybe most prepared, his responses were quite often cringeworthy from a left-of-centre perspective.
i don't see it affecting the unfolding of existing trends
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
the duceppe factor is what is important, here. see, he can take positions the others can't because he's not actually running for prime minister. so, letting him into the debate immediately changes the narrative. he also has different swing issues with each of the other parties, fighting with harper for caq votes, trudeau for liberal votes (however unlikely) and mulcair for pq votes.
he got a few good ones in on trudeau, particularly relating to his more right-leaning positions. corporate taxes. free trade. these are the reasons that people like me would *like* to vote for the ndp, if their leader wasn't such an obvious conservative. then again, we all know the liberals are a bay street party. they're just unique, in being a fair bay street party. if that helps anyone, it's mulcair.
but, remember: everything is upside down in quebec. trudeau has little to gain from duceppe, but a lot to gain by sucking right-leaning provincial liberal support away from harper and mulcair. it's the right argument to make, in quebec. even if it leaves people like me gritting my teeth, and wishing the ndp hadn't fallen down the rabbit hole.
something strange happened about halfway through the debate, though. duceppe seemed to begin to subtly indicate, several times, that he was endorsing trudeau. it's just the way he presented things, to make trudeau appear in a more favourable light than mulcair. subtle? very. who knows if it gets picked up. but, it's there, and is likely reflective of internal bloc calculations. if you want to call them that. the bloc campaign at this point is not exactly highly funded.
so long as duceppe is showing up at these things, he is going to win almost every debate. he's just not as restricted in what he can do, and it gives him a massive advantage. but, i'm not convinced he's going to win very many seats. it's hard to guess how a four way split like this turns out....
i don't see an obvious winner, otherwise. duceppe maybe hit trudeau harder than he hit the other two. but, the nature of the quebec spectrum is such that it might actually help him. he seems to have hit harper off guard repeatedly, leaving him without any kind of coherent response: he just stated things unconvincingly. and, while mulcair was maybe most prepared, his responses were quite often cringeworthy from a left-of-centre perspective.
i don't see it affecting the unfolding of existing trends
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/french-language-debate-party-leaders-quebec-1.3255075
those laws brought in with the transfer agreements need to be overturned, although if somebody is being arrested for "illegal hunting" after marshall it must be under a specific loophole. most canadians have no idea. if they did, they'd be shocked at the lack of economic freedom that we grant the indigenous peoples of this country.
this is never an election issue. but, it's the meta-issue.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nunavut-elder-calls-for-federal-election-boycott-1.3252638
this is never an election issue. but, it's the meta-issue.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nunavut-elder-calls-for-federal-election-boycott-1.3252638
mario dumont got 31 percent...
i don't know any study that tries to map things. it would be useful. i can use logic to conclude a few things, including that the ndp was necessarily attracting adq support in at least a few places. you can't map the quebec liberals to the federal liberals; a lot of quebec liberals will vote conservative, federally. if you're naive, you could even get close to quebec liberal numbers by simply adding up recent federal liberal and conservative numbers, although that's no doubt wrong [as some are surely voting ndp]. further, you'd expect quite a few adq supporters would support the bloc, so you can't just go back to 2008 and try and sync up pq and bloc totals.
the bloc's strategy seems to suggest that it's internal polling suggests to it that most of it's remaining voters are at least adq-pq swing voters, if not mostly adq voters, otherwise they wouldn't be nailing it so hard. which means that quite a bit of what the conservatives are attracting must be quebec liberals.
it follows that it would be reasonable to suggest that half of adq voters are supporting the bloc, while a quarter are supporting the conservatives and a quarter are supporting the ndp. further, it would be reasonable to suggest that a half of quebec liberal voters are supporting the liberals, while a quarter are supporting the conservatives and a quarter are supporting the ndp. these are *extremely* rough numbers*. yet...
....when i suggested this a few weeks ago, i was thinking about ontario. in quebec? if my calculations are anything close to right, it could be that, when the dust settles, he may have merely shot himself in the foot by pulling in adq support from the ndp at the expense of aligning the provincial and federal liberal vote. if i was stephen harper, the absolute last thing i'd want to do is find a way to align the federal and provincial wings of the liberal party in quebec in voting intentions...
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/02/fasts-office-denies-tpp-auto-deal-reached/
i don't know any study that tries to map things. it would be useful. i can use logic to conclude a few things, including that the ndp was necessarily attracting adq support in at least a few places. you can't map the quebec liberals to the federal liberals; a lot of quebec liberals will vote conservative, federally. if you're naive, you could even get close to quebec liberal numbers by simply adding up recent federal liberal and conservative numbers, although that's no doubt wrong [as some are surely voting ndp]. further, you'd expect quite a few adq supporters would support the bloc, so you can't just go back to 2008 and try and sync up pq and bloc totals.
the bloc's strategy seems to suggest that it's internal polling suggests to it that most of it's remaining voters are at least adq-pq swing voters, if not mostly adq voters, otherwise they wouldn't be nailing it so hard. which means that quite a bit of what the conservatives are attracting must be quebec liberals.
it follows that it would be reasonable to suggest that half of adq voters are supporting the bloc, while a quarter are supporting the conservatives and a quarter are supporting the ndp. further, it would be reasonable to suggest that a half of quebec liberal voters are supporting the liberals, while a quarter are supporting the conservatives and a quarter are supporting the ndp. these are *extremely* rough numbers*. yet...
....when i suggested this a few weeks ago, i was thinking about ontario. in quebec? if my calculations are anything close to right, it could be that, when the dust settles, he may have merely shot himself in the foot by pulling in adq support from the ndp at the expense of aligning the provincial and federal liberal vote. if i was stephen harper, the absolute last thing i'd want to do is find a way to align the federal and provincial wings of the liberal party in quebec in voting intentions...
http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/02/fasts-office-denies-tpp-auto-deal-reached/
Thursday, October 1, 2015
anti-harper direct action strategy...
you don't need to be a big media outlet to do this. you just need some way to draw attention to yourself, which is not hard nowadays. i won't be doing this myself - i want to get back to work and would neither enjoy this nor truly know what to look for - but it's something you can do in the short run that could make a difference.
i got the idea while looking at 2011 election results in cowichan-malahat-langford, which is in british columbia. this is a new riding, but if it were redistributed the outcomes in 2011 would be:
ndp: 44
cons: 43
grn: 7
lib: 6
now, let's imagine the liberal candidate were removed. current polling suggests that roughly 50% of the support would go to the ndp, 25% to the conservatives and 25% to the greens. new results:
ndp: 47
cons: 44.5
grn: 8.5
minor difference. but, potentially deciding, depending on turnout.
it turns out that the liberal candidate has actually resigned. she said something that somebody found upsetting, or something. in fact, there have been a lot of candidates removed for that reason over the last two months.
this is where the idea comes in. the ndp & liberals will not merge, and i don't even want them to merge, but in a situation like the above, where one party is 40 points out of competing? candidates should be dropped. it would be nice to see the green candidate dropped in a situation like that, too; the ndp would gain a plurality. but, they won't even do this.
i think that we can make this happen in some circumstances. we just need to identify ridings like the above (where the race is close and a third (and/or fourth) candidate is clearly not in contention, and is merely splitting the vote), use our collective technological capacities to dig up dirt on them (specifically things they said that some people may think is upsetting) and get that to the proper media outlets. these candidates will get dropped, which will hopefully break the splitting.
go forth, and let it be done.
you don't need to be a big media outlet to do this. you just need some way to draw attention to yourself, which is not hard nowadays. i won't be doing this myself - i want to get back to work and would neither enjoy this nor truly know what to look for - but it's something you can do in the short run that could make a difference.
i got the idea while looking at 2011 election results in cowichan-malahat-langford, which is in british columbia. this is a new riding, but if it were redistributed the outcomes in 2011 would be:
ndp: 44
cons: 43
grn: 7
lib: 6
now, let's imagine the liberal candidate were removed. current polling suggests that roughly 50% of the support would go to the ndp, 25% to the conservatives and 25% to the greens. new results:
ndp: 47
cons: 44.5
grn: 8.5
minor difference. but, potentially deciding, depending on turnout.
it turns out that the liberal candidate has actually resigned. she said something that somebody found upsetting, or something. in fact, there have been a lot of candidates removed for that reason over the last two months.
this is where the idea comes in. the ndp & liberals will not merge, and i don't even want them to merge, but in a situation like the above, where one party is 40 points out of competing? candidates should be dropped. it would be nice to see the green candidate dropped in a situation like that, too; the ndp would gain a plurality. but, they won't even do this.
i think that we can make this happen in some circumstances. we just need to identify ridings like the above (where the race is close and a third (and/or fourth) candidate is clearly not in contention, and is merely splitting the vote), use our collective technological capacities to dig up dirt on them (specifically things they said that some people may think is upsetting) and get that to the proper media outlets. these candidates will get dropped, which will hopefully break the splitting.
go forth, and let it be done.
see, there is not a debate here. chretien is not providing an opinion. he is stating fact.
if he loses the appeal (as he certainly will - i would even argue against even hearing the case, it's so ridiculous), harper will either need to override the constitution with the notwithstanding clause or open it up and rewrite it, and good luck with that.
and, sit down for this.
*that's why we have a constitution: so, that the majority cannot oppress minorities*.
it's not just that this is stupid, and irrelevant. it's actually even meaningless. it's not an unimportant issue; it's a non-issue. there is nothing that harper can do to enforce this, short of declaring himself dictator.
and, realizing this should make you think about your position on the topic.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/let-courts-rule-on-rights-of-muslim-women-accept-decision-chretien-urges_n_8201550.html
if he loses the appeal (as he certainly will - i would even argue against even hearing the case, it's so ridiculous), harper will either need to override the constitution with the notwithstanding clause or open it up and rewrite it, and good luck with that.
and, sit down for this.
*that's why we have a constitution: so, that the majority cannot oppress minorities*.
it's not just that this is stupid, and irrelevant. it's actually even meaningless. it's not an unimportant issue; it's a non-issue. there is nothing that harper can do to enforce this, short of declaring himself dictator.
and, realizing this should make you think about your position on the topic.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/let-courts-rule-on-rights-of-muslim-women-accept-decision-chretien-urges_n_8201550.html
this really is remarkably refreshing, after so many years of absolute nonsense coming out of the leaders of all of the nato countries.
it's not whether he's right or wrong, it's just the idea of *not* being blindly anti-russian at every possible opportunity.
canada used to be very good at that.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/01/chretien-says-putin-s-help-in-syria-should-be-welcomed-by-canada_n_8230114
Mike Kulyk
russia INVADED crimea and now eastern ukraine !!! can that be construed as 'anti russian' ?
jessica amber murray
whatever the facts in the situation, slapping sanctions down and demonizing them doesn't accomplish anything. constructive solutions come in respectful dialogue.
the sanctions on russia have made them more aggressive, not less aggressive. since the sanctions were put down, the west has lost iran permanently due to russian strategic manoeuvring and has probably lost the window of opportunity that it had to influence events in syria. it is probably also in the process of losing iraq and lebanon to russian influence. it has led to indian accession to the shanghai co-operation agreement. neither the saudis nor the israelis are friends of america; rather, american power serves to keep them in check. the failure of the sanctions is being felt, with both of them looking elsewhere. it has also strained relations with parts of europe very badly, and made china even more suspicious of american motives. in short, the sanctions have been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. they've unravelled decades of carefully put together us policy, rewinding us back to before kissinger.
whatever you think of the russian actions in ukraine, the way to take them out is not to put sanctions on them - it is to negotiate with them. sanctions are an act of war. one must expect the proper response to a declaration of war.
if canada was functioning in the role that it normally functions in, i might hazard a guess that these sanctions would not have happened at all.
but, i need you to realize the scale of this.
the decision to place sanctions on russia last year may be the single largest strategic error in the history of the united states, up to this point. i'm certainly having difficulty thinking of anything else.
and, this gets to what i've been saying about mulcair for weeks and why i cannot vote for him.
his argument is actually that harper needs to get tougher on sanctions. put that in context. who's he trying to appeal to, here? it's the worst possible position he could take.
Sean Gillhoolley
Russia is wrong on Ukraine, and shame on the west for not protecting that nation as the security agreement we have with Ukraine states we will. We agreed to that so that Ukraine would give up its nukes, which they did. I bet they regret doing that. If they still had nukes Russia would never have even considered invasion. That being said, I am glad to have Russia help in the middle east. I know they aren't in league with radical Islamists, which is more than I can say for the anti-Asaad rebels, who seem to blend easily among the ISIL folk.
jessica amber murray
well, i'm not going to deny that putin seized crimea, as some others have, because he clearly did. that is reality. but, it is also reality that it was in response to a us-backed coup, which kind of changes the game. on top of that, the budapest memorandum also existed within the context of a nato promise not to expand east of germany, which was broken in the 90s.
i don't want to take sides on this; my argument is really that taking sides, or at least doing so uncritically (we obviously have to and should want to take nato's side, in the end, if we have to), is counter-productive in the context of both sides breaking all kinds of agreements. canada should be acting as a mediator, not a cheerleader. the narrative near the supposed "end" of the cold war was all about mutual trust, which is something we helped build and something that the russians really took very seriously (maybe too seriously..), partially on our insistence, for quite a long time. canada has historically acted in a mediation role for the simple reason that building that mutual trust is in our national interest. the reason we refused co-operation in the missile shield is that it would have debris fall directly on edmonton.
an honest mediator needs to acknowledge that there's a strong argument that the united states created the problem and put pressure on the neo-cons (who are still running things...) to back off. but, it doesn't help to gloat about it or point fingers with a superior attitude.
it seems clear to me - i can't prove this, for obvious reasons - that the coup in kiev set off a russian war simulation that's currently being played out. that is, that the russians are acting as though world war three has already begun. and, worse, the americans are being consistently caught off guard - indicating that their own simulations are deeply lacking. that necessitates that talks begin immediately, before things get out of hand.
in the short term, having the russians step in to syria should act as a deterrent for further escalation. and, i think that's what chretien was actually getting at, in his typically cryptic smartass sort of way.
a russian-backed coup in mexico, or a chinese-backed coup in canada, are things that the american military has contingency plans for. if that somehow happens, that plan will be set in motion. none of us know exactly what it says. but, i'd suspect that an immediate occupation of certain areas of canada would be the first part of it. further, such a plan would be extremely difficult to stop or otherwise reverse, once it's set in motion.
it strains the imagination for me to think that russia does not have similar contingency plans in case of a us-backed coup in kiev. the reason the annexation of crimea happened almost bloodlessly (or literally; i'm not aware of any casualties) is no doubt because the russians had that plan sitting on the shelf for decades. it was just a question of activating it. and, these other things that are happening have no doubt been written out for a very long time. the russians have had "legitimate interests" in syria since the rise of arab socialism, which they were themselves instrumental in orchestrating.
one would think that the americans would realize this, but that's not at all clear to me, unless it's some kind of trick to make it look like they're incompetent, and then hit them by surprise. but, that's not a good scenario, either.
they're on the brink. they need to sit down and talk. historically, we've been useful at getting them to sit down and talk..
Nathan Weather
The only thing wrong about Ukraine is the historical example it sets: the only country to ever voluntarily give up nuclear weapons got invaded and lost territory. But look at the demographics - it wasn't really Ukranian - that was just an accident of where the Soviets drew the lines.
jessica amber murray
regardless of the arguments, and there are some from the perspective of the russian national interest, it's still an infringement of international law. when somebody kills somebody in self-defense, we may lesson their sentence but we still prosecute them. call it an infringement of the rule of international law in the second-degree if you must, but don't turn a blind eye to it. it's still serious. it can't be normalized.
that said, this is done, and likely irreversible. but we can't just be saying that this is ok. rather, we should be looking at the root causes, getting people sitting down and making sure agreements are worked out.
it's just that this is a lot harder now, because the russians have lost the trust, however naive it was, that they'd been holding on to since gorbachev. the kind of intermediary power that canada once was is really absolutely necessary. somebody has to step up...
--
Paul Smith
Wow, never thought that the Libs would welcome Putin into the Syrian conflict. Any Lib responses here????
jessica amber murray
i'm very far to the left of the liberals, but if you understand the nature of the conflict (which is essentially a saudi invasion of syria under the assumption that the russians are done as a great power), it follows that a reassertion of russian power in a traditional russian proxy is probably the fastest way to end the fighting.
canada does not have an interest in the outcome of the war, only an interest to have it end as soon as possible to stop it from costing us money.
it's not whether he's right or wrong, it's just the idea of *not* being blindly anti-russian at every possible opportunity.
canada used to be very good at that.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/01/chretien-says-putin-s-help-in-syria-should-be-welcomed-by-canada_n_8230114
Mike Kulyk
russia INVADED crimea and now eastern ukraine !!! can that be construed as 'anti russian' ?
jessica amber murray
whatever the facts in the situation, slapping sanctions down and demonizing them doesn't accomplish anything. constructive solutions come in respectful dialogue.
the sanctions on russia have made them more aggressive, not less aggressive. since the sanctions were put down, the west has lost iran permanently due to russian strategic manoeuvring and has probably lost the window of opportunity that it had to influence events in syria. it is probably also in the process of losing iraq and lebanon to russian influence. it has led to indian accession to the shanghai co-operation agreement. neither the saudis nor the israelis are friends of america; rather, american power serves to keep them in check. the failure of the sanctions is being felt, with both of them looking elsewhere. it has also strained relations with parts of europe very badly, and made china even more suspicious of american motives. in short, the sanctions have been an absolute, unmitigated disaster. they've unravelled decades of carefully put together us policy, rewinding us back to before kissinger.
whatever you think of the russian actions in ukraine, the way to take them out is not to put sanctions on them - it is to negotiate with them. sanctions are an act of war. one must expect the proper response to a declaration of war.
if canada was functioning in the role that it normally functions in, i might hazard a guess that these sanctions would not have happened at all.
but, i need you to realize the scale of this.
the decision to place sanctions on russia last year may be the single largest strategic error in the history of the united states, up to this point. i'm certainly having difficulty thinking of anything else.
and, this gets to what i've been saying about mulcair for weeks and why i cannot vote for him.
his argument is actually that harper needs to get tougher on sanctions. put that in context. who's he trying to appeal to, here? it's the worst possible position he could take.
Sean Gillhoolley
Russia is wrong on Ukraine, and shame on the west for not protecting that nation as the security agreement we have with Ukraine states we will. We agreed to that so that Ukraine would give up its nukes, which they did. I bet they regret doing that. If they still had nukes Russia would never have even considered invasion. That being said, I am glad to have Russia help in the middle east. I know they aren't in league with radical Islamists, which is more than I can say for the anti-Asaad rebels, who seem to blend easily among the ISIL folk.
jessica amber murray
well, i'm not going to deny that putin seized crimea, as some others have, because he clearly did. that is reality. but, it is also reality that it was in response to a us-backed coup, which kind of changes the game. on top of that, the budapest memorandum also existed within the context of a nato promise not to expand east of germany, which was broken in the 90s.
i don't want to take sides on this; my argument is really that taking sides, or at least doing so uncritically (we obviously have to and should want to take nato's side, in the end, if we have to), is counter-productive in the context of both sides breaking all kinds of agreements. canada should be acting as a mediator, not a cheerleader. the narrative near the supposed "end" of the cold war was all about mutual trust, which is something we helped build and something that the russians really took very seriously (maybe too seriously..), partially on our insistence, for quite a long time. canada has historically acted in a mediation role for the simple reason that building that mutual trust is in our national interest. the reason we refused co-operation in the missile shield is that it would have debris fall directly on edmonton.
an honest mediator needs to acknowledge that there's a strong argument that the united states created the problem and put pressure on the neo-cons (who are still running things...) to back off. but, it doesn't help to gloat about it or point fingers with a superior attitude.
it seems clear to me - i can't prove this, for obvious reasons - that the coup in kiev set off a russian war simulation that's currently being played out. that is, that the russians are acting as though world war three has already begun. and, worse, the americans are being consistently caught off guard - indicating that their own simulations are deeply lacking. that necessitates that talks begin immediately, before things get out of hand.
in the short term, having the russians step in to syria should act as a deterrent for further escalation. and, i think that's what chretien was actually getting at, in his typically cryptic smartass sort of way.
a russian-backed coup in mexico, or a chinese-backed coup in canada, are things that the american military has contingency plans for. if that somehow happens, that plan will be set in motion. none of us know exactly what it says. but, i'd suspect that an immediate occupation of certain areas of canada would be the first part of it. further, such a plan would be extremely difficult to stop or otherwise reverse, once it's set in motion.
it strains the imagination for me to think that russia does not have similar contingency plans in case of a us-backed coup in kiev. the reason the annexation of crimea happened almost bloodlessly (or literally; i'm not aware of any casualties) is no doubt because the russians had that plan sitting on the shelf for decades. it was just a question of activating it. and, these other things that are happening have no doubt been written out for a very long time. the russians have had "legitimate interests" in syria since the rise of arab socialism, which they were themselves instrumental in orchestrating.
one would think that the americans would realize this, but that's not at all clear to me, unless it's some kind of trick to make it look like they're incompetent, and then hit them by surprise. but, that's not a good scenario, either.
they're on the brink. they need to sit down and talk. historically, we've been useful at getting them to sit down and talk..
Nathan Weather
The only thing wrong about Ukraine is the historical example it sets: the only country to ever voluntarily give up nuclear weapons got invaded and lost territory. But look at the demographics - it wasn't really Ukranian - that was just an accident of where the Soviets drew the lines.
jessica amber murray
regardless of the arguments, and there are some from the perspective of the russian national interest, it's still an infringement of international law. when somebody kills somebody in self-defense, we may lesson their sentence but we still prosecute them. call it an infringement of the rule of international law in the second-degree if you must, but don't turn a blind eye to it. it's still serious. it can't be normalized.
that said, this is done, and likely irreversible. but we can't just be saying that this is ok. rather, we should be looking at the root causes, getting people sitting down and making sure agreements are worked out.
it's just that this is a lot harder now, because the russians have lost the trust, however naive it was, that they'd been holding on to since gorbachev. the kind of intermediary power that canada once was is really absolutely necessary. somebody has to step up...
--
Paul Smith
Wow, never thought that the Libs would welcome Putin into the Syrian conflict. Any Lib responses here????
jessica amber murray
i'm very far to the left of the liberals, but if you understand the nature of the conflict (which is essentially a saudi invasion of syria under the assumption that the russians are done as a great power), it follows that a reassertion of russian power in a traditional russian proxy is probably the fastest way to end the fighting.
canada does not have an interest in the outcome of the war, only an interest to have it end as soon as possible to stop it from costing us money.
this reeks of a broken promise. disappointing.
legalizing marijuana is just about the best economic policy i can think of.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pot-marijuana-legalization-timeline-1.3252088
legalizing marijuana is just about the best economic policy i can think of.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-pot-marijuana-legalization-timeline-1.3252088
the riding projections take province-wide data and then try to guess where it is.
now, honestly? sure: it makes sense to think the increase in non-conservative votes would be centered in the cities. however, the riding data says that this is wrong. so, where is it, then?
well, i've been leaning towards the idea that there's a hidden force at play (chp. socred, libertarian; i'm guessing, it's not remotely clear) and that there really isn't an increase in the other parties' vote totals, it just looks like that due to the shrinking useable sample. but, i would need to see a boost in "other" in alberta and saskatchewan for that to be true, and it's not panning out.
the liberals are an almost solely urban party. the ndp really aren't. they've always done well in the rural areas of western canada. and, the ndp won some rural seats at the provincial level.
if that's the case, i wouldn't expect to see any seat changes.
it makes a little direct sense, too.
who is more affected by tar sands pollution: a pothead university student in calgary, or a farmer halfway between lethbridge and medicine hat?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557
now, honestly? sure: it makes sense to think the increase in non-conservative votes would be centered in the cities. however, the riding data says that this is wrong. so, where is it, then?
well, i've been leaning towards the idea that there's a hidden force at play (chp. socred, libertarian; i'm guessing, it's not remotely clear) and that there really isn't an increase in the other parties' vote totals, it just looks like that due to the shrinking useable sample. but, i would need to see a boost in "other" in alberta and saskatchewan for that to be true, and it's not panning out.
the liberals are an almost solely urban party. the ndp really aren't. they've always done well in the rural areas of western canada. and, the ndp won some rural seats at the provincial level.
if that's the case, i wouldn't expect to see any seat changes.
it makes a little direct sense, too.
who is more affected by tar sands pollution: a pothead university student in calgary, or a farmer halfway between lethbridge and medicine hat?
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557
this is alberta. realistically, she has to plan for a four or five year term, and expect to lose the next election. i know it's hard and maybe even dangerous for a party to think like that, but it's what she should be thinking - unless she just wants to get erased from history five years from now.
i like that she's thinking big. but, she has to work fast. she has to assume she has one term. and, she has to be thinking about traps for future governments that are going to stop them from repealing her entire period via omnibus. that means getting shovels in the ground asap, tying up investments in things that are broadly insoluble, etc.
i know; this is toxic. but, this is alberta.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/30/no-long-term-future-in-tar-sands-alberta-rachel-notley#comments
i like that she's thinking big. but, she has to work fast. she has to assume she has one term. and, she has to be thinking about traps for future governments that are going to stop them from repealing her entire period via omnibus. that means getting shovels in the ground asap, tying up investments in things that are broadly insoluble, etc.
i know; this is toxic. but, this is alberta.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/30/no-long-term-future-in-tar-sands-alberta-rachel-notley#comments
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
hopefully, more candidates that are running a distant third or fourth will drop out. it should help to minimize vote splitting.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cheryl-thomas-liberal-candidate-resigns-1.3251338
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/cheryl-thomas-liberal-candidate-resigns-1.3251338
riding polls suggest that the ndp is likely to win one seat in edmonton, and the liberals might have a chance at one seat in calgary.
sorry: that is one seat on top of linda duncan's, for a total of two.
when riding model projections contradict riding polls, you want to take the riding polls, not the riding model projections. riding polls are direct measurement. riding model projections are really a kind of artistic expression.
if you'd like to publish some riding data, i'd be happy to see it. but, the data is as it is, and it simply does not point towards gains by the opposition parties in alberta at this time.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557
(lost post)
that is not reliable riding data. that is a riding model projection, which is an artist's rendition of a possible election outcome.
you can access actual riding data here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_Canadian_constituencies,_42nd_Canadian_Election#Alberta
the riding projections take province-wide data and then try to guess where it is.
now, honestly? sure: it makes sense to think the increase in non-conservative votes would be centered in the cities. however, the riding data says that this is wrong. so, where is it, then?
well, i've been leaning towards the idea that there's a hidden force at play (chp. socred, libertarian; i'm guessing, it's not remotely clear) and that there really isn't an increase in the other parties' vote totals, it just looks like that due to the shrinking useable sample. but, i would need to see a boost in "other" in alberta and saskatchewan for that to be true, and it's not panning out.
the liberals are an almost solely urban party. the ndp really aren't. they've always done well in the rural areas of western canada. and, the ndp won some rural seats at the provincial level.
if that's the case, i wouldn't expect to see any seat changes
it makes a little direct sense, too.
who is more affected by tar sands pollution: a pothead university student in calgary, or a farmer halfway between lethbridge and medicine hat?
sorry: that is one seat on top of linda duncan's, for a total of two.
when riding model projections contradict riding polls, you want to take the riding polls, not the riding model projections. riding polls are direct measurement. riding model projections are really a kind of artistic expression.
if you'd like to publish some riding data, i'd be happy to see it. but, the data is as it is, and it simply does not point towards gains by the opposition parties in alberta at this time.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-change-in-the-air-alberta-1.3250557
(lost post)
that is not reliable riding data. that is a riding model projection, which is an artist's rendition of a possible election outcome.
you can access actual riding data here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_Canadian_constituencies,_42nd_Canadian_Election#Alberta
the riding projections take province-wide data and then try to guess where it is.
now, honestly? sure: it makes sense to think the increase in non-conservative votes would be centered in the cities. however, the riding data says that this is wrong. so, where is it, then?
well, i've been leaning towards the idea that there's a hidden force at play (chp. socred, libertarian; i'm guessing, it's not remotely clear) and that there really isn't an increase in the other parties' vote totals, it just looks like that due to the shrinking useable sample. but, i would need to see a boost in "other" in alberta and saskatchewan for that to be true, and it's not panning out.
the liberals are an almost solely urban party. the ndp really aren't. they've always done well in the rural areas of western canada. and, the ndp won some rural seats at the provincial level.
if that's the case, i wouldn't expect to see any seat changes
it makes a little direct sense, too.
who is more affected by tar sands pollution: a pothead university student in calgary, or a farmer halfway between lethbridge and medicine hat?
i have to agree with the dominant opinion expressed here. we've got all kinds of important things in front of us, and you're running stories on this? for ratings?
are you going to be proud of yourself if this becomes the ballot question? and, how does that make the country look to the rest of the world?
if this is honestly galvanizing your vote, please have the presence of mind to realize that you're not informed and stay home, instead.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ban-zunera-ishaq-1.3249495
(lost post)
well, he wouldn't be able to do that if the media didn't help him along with it. we all know how harper works, and expect certain tactics from him. but, if this is the ballot question, the media will be squarely and unambiguously to blame for it.
(lost post)
a large percentage of people will allow the ballot question to be defined for them. it is the media that has insisted upon it, and will be responsible for it if it happens.
(lost post)
i do get your point. and i don't exactly want to call people brainless sheep; i don't think that i need to in order to get the point across about defining a *question*. there's a thousand things on the table. but, we tend to collectively pick an issue or two and then collectively vote in that context. if the media presents the election as a referendum on wearing a scarf at a ceremony, that's what the election will be in the minds of many people.
things are getting better with the internet, but we're still bottle-necked by the media as an information source. and, things are happening in real-time. there's not a library anybody can go to to get election information. we're reliant on the filter we're presented with. all of us.
are you going to be proud of yourself if this becomes the ballot question? and, how does that make the country look to the rest of the world?
if this is honestly galvanizing your vote, please have the presence of mind to realize that you're not informed and stay home, instead.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/niqab-ban-zunera-ishaq-1.3249495
(lost post)
well, he wouldn't be able to do that if the media didn't help him along with it. we all know how harper works, and expect certain tactics from him. but, if this is the ballot question, the media will be squarely and unambiguously to blame for it.
(lost post)
a large percentage of people will allow the ballot question to be defined for them. it is the media that has insisted upon it, and will be responsible for it if it happens.
(lost post)
i do get your point. and i don't exactly want to call people brainless sheep; i don't think that i need to in order to get the point across about defining a *question*. there's a thousand things on the table. but, we tend to collectively pick an issue or two and then collectively vote in that context. if the media presents the election as a referendum on wearing a scarf at a ceremony, that's what the election will be in the minds of many people.
things are getting better with the internet, but we're still bottle-necked by the media as an information source. and, things are happening in real-time. there's not a library anybody can go to to get election information. we're reliant on the filter we're presented with. all of us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)