ah, but what's the age of the earth? brain freeze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp5kHO0Jyfk
see, friedman is right but he's not taking it to it's logical conclusion. there's a widespread understanding that these regimes can only stay in place due to us backing. so, there's really some truth in the idea that getting to the united states is a kind of root cause analysis.
there's not a way to really take the monarchy in saudi arabia down, if we're constantly propping it up with weapons sales and building bases there and everything else.
it's politics first. religion is the means to the end to carry out the politics. and the foreign policy issue is the logical conclusion of the political concern. you're not picking and choosing to get the right answer, it's all interrelated.
but, it's not any real concern about the united states. it's a lack of concern for the lives of american citizens, in carrying out a tactical strike that they think will be useful in carrying out their regional geopolitical aims.
and, that's understood by the pentagon. it's why they've created a mess in the region, to keep the fight there.
i'm generally with dawkins on most things, but he seems to get the causality on this backwards. maher...he usually has a valid point to make, but he often ruins it with fuzzy thinking. you need to be a lot more careful with maher; he's usually right, but only in warped ways, and only if you correct his over generalizations. i don't exactly think he's a racist, so much as i think he's prone to generalizing specifics and legitimately doesn't understand what's wrong with it. it's not that he's approaching things with a discriminatory mindset, so much as that he's not very good at analyzing information, and honestly draws poor conclusions as a consequence of it.
but, religion is being brandished as a tool, here; it's not the root cause. if you could get in the way somehow, it might help, but only to a point. you can replace religion with nationalism or some other means of brainwashing. it's the political motives that are the actual concern, and we do share quite a bit of the blame for creating necessary reactions to obvious crimes.
the difference is that i think dawkins is going to see the logic in that. he might push back a little, but he's going to broadly agree. i consider him more in line with hitchens, who would certainly agree [if i'm not indirectly quoting him in the first place]. maher and harris and a few of the others are going to make excuses. or try and invalidate that, or say there's some answer, or draw foolish comparisons, or whatever else. and, they'll cross lines, sometimes. with maher, i get the impression he often doesn't know any better; i can't give harris the same benefit of the doubt.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
actually, stem majors have the highest degrees of unemployment nowadays. what you’re saying was true 30 years ago. but, then we were all told to study stem courses, and we’ve ended up with a giant surplus of people with stem degrees, which has both driven down wages and let to mass underemployment.
i’ve seen jobs that require biology degrees *and* experience that start at $11/hr. i’ve met people with phds in mathematics that have to rely on their physical appearance to get jobs as servers.
i’m 34, and probably belong in the 35-50 demographic for cultural reasons [i’d identify as gen x], but there’s a lot of good reasons why young people are going to want to grasp on to the party most likely to defeat the conservatives, which is clearly the liberals at this point. i think what’s more interesting is trying to answer why people in retirement are so keen on voting conservative, and my best guess is they don’t want their stocks taxed.
if you look at changes in income over the last thirty years, the only people that have benefited are older people. there’s a reason for it: the financial system is designed that way. so, if you ask the question “are you better off…”, the truth is that older people really are – but younger people definitely are not.
none of the parties are really pushing any kind of wealth redistribution from the older to the younger, but the conservatives have done a few things to prevent that kind of redistribution, and the fear may be that some of it may end up getting undone.
so, yeah, it’s rational: but only if you’re actually an older person, and are commanding the wealth.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/liberals-and-conservative-in-dead-heat/#comment-58062
i’ve seen jobs that require biology degrees *and* experience that start at $11/hr. i’ve met people with phds in mathematics that have to rely on their physical appearance to get jobs as servers.
i’m 34, and probably belong in the 35-50 demographic for cultural reasons [i’d identify as gen x], but there’s a lot of good reasons why young people are going to want to grasp on to the party most likely to defeat the conservatives, which is clearly the liberals at this point. i think what’s more interesting is trying to answer why people in retirement are so keen on voting conservative, and my best guess is they don’t want their stocks taxed.
if you look at changes in income over the last thirty years, the only people that have benefited are older people. there’s a reason for it: the financial system is designed that way. so, if you ask the question “are you better off…”, the truth is that older people really are – but younger people definitely are not.
none of the parties are really pushing any kind of wealth redistribution from the older to the younger, but the conservatives have done a few things to prevent that kind of redistribution, and the fear may be that some of it may end up getting undone.
so, yeah, it’s rational: but only if you’re actually an older person, and are commanding the wealth.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/liberals-and-conservative-in-dead-heat/#comment-58062
Friday, October 9, 2015
they still have baseball?
umm. is pedro martinez still playing?
let's go! ex-pos!
i somehow doubt kids in montreal are going to react very well to getting a blue jays sweater in the mail from...geez, kids aren't even going to know what eatons was...
point is: far less people care than is being suggested. i tuned out after the 1994 strike, and never tuned in. 'cause the fact is that it really is ridiculously boring. and, most of the country feels little, if any, connection to toronto.
maximum impact scenario is that it keeps some rob ford voters at home.
www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/blue-jays-rangers-game-2-extra-innings-1.3264555
umm. is pedro martinez still playing?
let's go! ex-pos!
i somehow doubt kids in montreal are going to react very well to getting a blue jays sweater in the mail from...geez, kids aren't even going to know what eatons was...
point is: far less people care than is being suggested. i tuned out after the 1994 strike, and never tuned in. 'cause the fact is that it really is ridiculously boring. and, most of the country feels little, if any, connection to toronto.
maximum impact scenario is that it keeps some rob ford voters at home.
www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/mlb/blue-jays-rangers-game-2-extra-innings-1.3264555
see, this is another example of tactics backfiring. look at that line. it's all seniors that decided they were going to vote conservative in 2015 some time around 1973. nothing's going to sway these cats, so they want to get their votes in early. it's the last minute voters that he wants to slow down, not the sure and steady card-carrying advance voters...
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/election-2015-toronto-voters-report-long-lines-at-advance-polls-1.3265731
my name must be unique
actually, a lot of those people are voting early because they don't want to deal with improper de-registration on Oct. 19, they want to make sure their vote against harper actually counts
jessica murray
mmmhmmm.
some polls are suggesting that harper may be pulling in as much as 50% of the senior vote right now.
Strategic Voter
my Strategic vote was in as of this afternoon
jessica murray
not very strategic, then. what if the data flips this week?
Me like Harper, Ugh!
Don't count on it being seniors, Jessica. I'm 65 next month and I despise the harperoid. In 1973 I was all idealistic and 'love conquers all'ish. I have never changed my value system and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow seniors think like me...unless they got stupid-rich in the meantime.
Strategic voting is riding based. Polls down to the riding level don't happen that often.
jessica murray
well, it's what the data says, and that's more valuable than your personal anecdote. i don't really understand it, either.
i've grown up with the understanding of the baby boomers not as the generation of the summer of love but as the generation of radical individualism, neo-liberal reform, randian objectivism and selfishness as a virtue. it's the nixon-thatcher-reagan generation. the "me generation". the overwhelming conservative bias in the baby boomer generation is not a new phenomenon, and not connected to passing through into retirement; it's been consistent since they were in their 20s. and, they've moved the center of society radically to their right as they've aged.
my guess is that they're more concerned about stock markets than social security. it may seem short-sighted, self-centered and irrational. but, that's fully consistent with their past decisions.
i'm speaking in aggregate, of course, and fully understand that trends don't necessarily apply to individuals.
there have been quite a few riding polls released, and it's often....well, *i* don't find it hard to reasonably interpolate data a day or two beforehand. but this is a red herring. regardless of how much data is or is not available, it never makes sense to vote strategically in advance polls.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/election-2015-toronto-voters-report-long-lines-at-advance-polls-1.3265731
my name must be unique
actually, a lot of those people are voting early because they don't want to deal with improper de-registration on Oct. 19, they want to make sure their vote against harper actually counts
jessica murray
mmmhmmm.
some polls are suggesting that harper may be pulling in as much as 50% of the senior vote right now.
Strategic Voter
my Strategic vote was in as of this afternoon
jessica murray
not very strategic, then. what if the data flips this week?
Me like Harper, Ugh!
Don't count on it being seniors, Jessica. I'm 65 next month and I despise the harperoid. In 1973 I was all idealistic and 'love conquers all'ish. I have never changed my value system and I'm pretty sure most of my fellow seniors think like me...unless they got stupid-rich in the meantime.
Strategic voting is riding based. Polls down to the riding level don't happen that often.
jessica murray
well, it's what the data says, and that's more valuable than your personal anecdote. i don't really understand it, either.
i've grown up with the understanding of the baby boomers not as the generation of the summer of love but as the generation of radical individualism, neo-liberal reform, randian objectivism and selfishness as a virtue. it's the nixon-thatcher-reagan generation. the "me generation". the overwhelming conservative bias in the baby boomer generation is not a new phenomenon, and not connected to passing through into retirement; it's been consistent since they were in their 20s. and, they've moved the center of society radically to their right as they've aged.
my guess is that they're more concerned about stock markets than social security. it may seem short-sighted, self-centered and irrational. but, that's fully consistent with their past decisions.
i'm speaking in aggregate, of course, and fully understand that trends don't necessarily apply to individuals.
there have been quite a few riding polls released, and it's often....well, *i* don't find it hard to reasonably interpolate data a day or two beforehand. but this is a red herring. regardless of how much data is or is not available, it never makes sense to vote strategically in advance polls.
pics or it didn't happen.
i'm just trying to piece together the chain of logic, and not really getting it. is he trying to make a fashion statement?
now, if he was trying to make a point, what he'd have to do is show up to a citizenship ceremony with a confederate flag wrapped around his face. would he be denied access to the ceremony? i somehow doubt it. they may ask him to make a little space for his mouth, so they can see he's saying the oath.
and, even then, what's his point?
that said.
and in fairness.
where does this "wearing a disguise with intent" law come from? is it a felony? does intent need to be proven, here? can he get off if mens rea is disproven? was this law written in the nineteenth century?
"while my client admits to wearing a disguise, we believe it is clear that there was no intent, and we request that the charges be reduced to wearing a disguise in the second degree."
ok. ok. it's wearing a disguise with intent...to commit a crime.
...and it seems to be the anti-mask protesting law that the conservatives brought in. i remember that.
but, this is neither a riot nor an unlawful assembly.
listen: it's obviously a goofy thing to do. i don't want to stand up for him, exactly. but, he's got a pretty good case that the law is unconstitutional.
lots of irony, here.
i'm a little bit wrong. the anti-mask bill was built on top of existing legislation. love the internet era.
Possession of break-in instrument
351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Disguise with intent
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
i sincerely hope this goes to the supreme court.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/confederate-flag-clad-man-disrupts-calgary-candidates-debate-1.3264849
i'm just trying to piece together the chain of logic, and not really getting it. is he trying to make a fashion statement?
now, if he was trying to make a point, what he'd have to do is show up to a citizenship ceremony with a confederate flag wrapped around his face. would he be denied access to the ceremony? i somehow doubt it. they may ask him to make a little space for his mouth, so they can see he's saying the oath.
and, even then, what's his point?
that said.
and in fairness.
where does this "wearing a disguise with intent" law come from? is it a felony? does intent need to be proven, here? can he get off if mens rea is disproven? was this law written in the nineteenth century?
"while my client admits to wearing a disguise, we believe it is clear that there was no intent, and we request that the charges be reduced to wearing a disguise in the second degree."
ok. ok. it's wearing a disguise with intent...to commit a crime.
...and it seems to be the anti-mask protesting law that the conservatives brought in. i remember that.
but, this is neither a riot nor an unlawful assembly.
listen: it's obviously a goofy thing to do. i don't want to stand up for him, exactly. but, he's got a pretty good case that the law is unconstitutional.
lots of irony, here.
i'm a little bit wrong. the anti-mask bill was built on top of existing legislation. love the internet era.
Possession of break-in instrument
351. (1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, the proof of which lies on them, has in their possession any instrument suitable for the purpose of breaking into any place, motor vehicle, vault or safe under circumstances that give rise to a reasonable inference that the instrument has been used or is or was intended to be used for such a purpose,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Disguise with intent
(2) Every one who, with intent to commit an indictable offence, has his face masked or coloured or is otherwise disguised is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
i sincerely hope this goes to the supreme court.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/confederate-flag-clad-man-disrupts-calgary-candidates-debate-1.3264849
"Despite what the NDP and Liberals says, we cannot borrow or tax our way to prosperity."
he says that like prosperity is a thing we may have some day, rather than something that we already have.
it's just another example of a statement that's really meaningless nonsense. i mean, consider it applied in other circumstances, and tell me how much sense you think it makes.
"we cannot cheer our way into being dominant at hockey."
"we cannot consume our way into having ample amounts of fresh water reserves."
"we cannot freeze our way into being cold."
it's hard to argue with him a lot of the time, because he's often not expressing anything resembling a coherent thought. if canada is not a prosperous country, what country is?
i think it should be clear to everybody that we have prosperity already. and, what a government should be doing in a prosperous country is finding ways to take advantage of that prosperity in ways that benefit actual people.
the reason we're in a deficit in the first place is that he cut taxes too far relative to revenues. and, then he grew himself out of it. there's huge amounts of untapped prosperity. you can throw a dart at a wall of policy proposals.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservative-party-platform-1.3264597
he says that like prosperity is a thing we may have some day, rather than something that we already have.
it's just another example of a statement that's really meaningless nonsense. i mean, consider it applied in other circumstances, and tell me how much sense you think it makes.
"we cannot cheer our way into being dominant at hockey."
"we cannot consume our way into having ample amounts of fresh water reserves."
"we cannot freeze our way into being cold."
it's hard to argue with him a lot of the time, because he's often not expressing anything resembling a coherent thought. if canada is not a prosperous country, what country is?
i think it should be clear to everybody that we have prosperity already. and, what a government should be doing in a prosperous country is finding ways to take advantage of that prosperity in ways that benefit actual people.
the reason we're in a deficit in the first place is that he cut taxes too far relative to revenues. and, then he grew himself out of it. there's huge amounts of untapped prosperity. you can throw a dart at a wall of policy proposals.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-conservative-party-platform-1.3264597
"protect our economy with a balanced budget"
????
you can't even make sense of what they're trying to say. and they suggest their opponents are clueless?
this is desperate, and if they think they're going to reverse weeks of ndp-->liberal momentum with a few cheap shots they're wrong, but it's at least nice to put the racism away.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservative-target-trudeau-economy-1.3263482
????
you can't even make sense of what they're trying to say. and they suggest their opponents are clueless?
this is desperate, and if they think they're going to reverse weeks of ndp-->liberal momentum with a few cheap shots they're wrong, but it's at least nice to put the racism away.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-ad-hawk-conservative-target-trudeau-economy-1.3263482
the sucking it out part sounds like a good idea. the reusing it part doesn't. i'd rather see it pumped underground, where it came from. but, then, where's the business model?
and, fast-forward two-hundred years when we're dealing with dangerously low levels of greenhouse gasses, because we're sucking them all down to drive to work.
we can make this stop. we have better technologies - but they're less profitable. that's why we need to forget about the private sector and look towards government. the private sector has never been able to create any sort of real innovation; it's always comes from massive state investment into technology, and mostly through university research. from the manhatten project to the internet and beyond, the private sector has very little to show for itself in terms of true innovation. it just profits off of state-funded research.
yet, when faced with a serious crisis, we turn to the private sector for answers instead of government? that's completely irrational.
the private sector can do things like grow apples.
but, you can't expect it to succeed in achieving anything complicated, as the profit motive will interfere.
serious problems need to be solved by government.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
KevinMcKinney
I don't think we'll ever see this process creating dangerously low levels of CO2; certainly in today's context, the risk is all the other way.
Should your scenario ever come to pass, it would be pretty simple to fix; just recycle less...
jessica murray
this creates a business model that is no less threatening to climate sustainability. you shouldn't be using the term "recycle"; it's not a valid comparison. but, scaling down production would decrease profits.
it'd be great if we could call up exxon, explain the crisis to them and have them scale down production. but, it's almost comically absurd.
again: we have better technology. but, it's less profitable. so, we need governments to develop it.
Commenter42
You get that the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere during that drive to work, don't you? It would be a cycle, where it's captured, turned into fuel, the fuel is burned, it's released again, the captured, and so on.
jessica murray
it'll never work like that. corporations are driven purely by profit motives.
there's absolutely no reason to hold on to obsolete technologies, other than an aversion to change.
to put it another way, you're putting faith in the corporate sector to regulate the carbon in the atmosphere. but, if that faith were well rooted, then we wouldn't be in this problem in the first place. it's not an answer. the answer is to stop polluting.
if you break it down, it's a technical question about demand. if you assume that demand keeps growing, it hits a point where we're sucking down more than we've emitted. that's why we need two hundred years to get there. but, it's inevitable.
in two hundred years, we might have anti-matter or something. fair enough. but, why bother? we have a plethora of other options.
Commenter42
I agree about the profit motives of corporations, but if the technology is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it to fuels whose consumption returns it to the atmosphere, how is the profit drive going to change that? That's what the technology is! I get that money can twist things along the way, but I don't get how this leads to too little CO2 in the atmosphere.
Demand for fuel means that fuel is being consumed. Consuming the fuel releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is similar to trees sequestering CO2 until they die and decompose (or burn) and releasing it again. Unless someone is stockpiling such an enormous amount of fuel that it actually affects atmospheric concentrations (and the cost of this would be gigantic, with no purpose), then I don't see how your breakdown works. Even if this were to happen, there's a simple solution--burn it.
Somehow, you've managed to make me sound like a right-wing corporate shill, but that is not the case. I'm commenting only on the possibilities for such technology (I don't know whether it can even live up to these possibilities yet).
jessica murray
first, you always have to have more fuel available than is being consumed. second, pulling it in and out is not the same thing as letting it sit. i want to be clear that i understand your argument, but it's just sort of a naive understanding. if you envision the system as working as though you have a pipe from your car to the factory [a conceptual oversimplification that demonstrates the point], you can conceptualize how it breaks the greenhouse effect, even if emissions are continual.
where the serious potential problem arises is when the net pull begins to exceed the net output, since whatever year. let's say 1980. then, the net effect is actually a reversal of the greenhouse effect, and we should see global cooling.
and, if you assume rising demand and depleting carbon reserves, you can set the date on your calendar.
Commenter42
So you're saying that a simplified model of the system, a factory, a fuel pipe to a consuming device, a device that consume the fuel and releases the CO2 somehow leads to a breaking of the CO2 effect?? It's that simple model I'm using to say the opposite. Where is the break?
jessica murray
i'm sorry that you're not able to make sense of the points. i'll try a few different ways to present it.
you seem to be ignoring the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and that we're either very close to or past peak oil. if you set up a system like this, then the atmosphere eventually becomes the only remaining carbon reservoir, and the only way to continue to meet increasing demand is to pull an increasing net amount down. it's not and can't be carbon neutral, unless we halt all growth. and, as mentioned, that's in addition to the necessity of having fuel stores.
the "recycling" part of this [and there's energy in, so it's not really recycling, but let's ignore that] can only cycle around if we assume a stagnant economy. you can only get enough cycling to maintain existing demand. x out only allows for x in (under ideal technology). but x is consistently increasing. so, we will need to pull more and more down. and, the curve will eventually intersect, so long as demand continues to rise.
so, consider the pipe-to-factory conceptualization. that can meet existing net demand. but, as demand increases, we have to pull more and more down out of the atmospheric reservoir. the amount that we're cycling will continue to increase, as growth increases. but, we'll need to pull more and more down to meet new demand. then, we'll be looking at decreasing ppms and a threat of global cooling.
it's just putting off a transition we need to make, anyways. right now, we're hurdling towards venus; this will reverse the curve and send us hurdling towards mars. we need to find a way to maintain our middle point.
and, fast-forward two-hundred years when we're dealing with dangerously low levels of greenhouse gasses, because we're sucking them all down to drive to work.
we can make this stop. we have better technologies - but they're less profitable. that's why we need to forget about the private sector and look towards government. the private sector has never been able to create any sort of real innovation; it's always comes from massive state investment into technology, and mostly through university research. from the manhatten project to the internet and beyond, the private sector has very little to show for itself in terms of true innovation. it just profits off of state-funded research.
yet, when faced with a serious crisis, we turn to the private sector for answers instead of government? that's completely irrational.
the private sector can do things like grow apples.
but, you can't expect it to succeed in achieving anything complicated, as the profit motive will interfere.
serious problems need to be solved by government.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/carbon-capture-squamish-1.3263855
KevinMcKinney
I don't think we'll ever see this process creating dangerously low levels of CO2; certainly in today's context, the risk is all the other way.
Should your scenario ever come to pass, it would be pretty simple to fix; just recycle less...
jessica murray
this creates a business model that is no less threatening to climate sustainability. you shouldn't be using the term "recycle"; it's not a valid comparison. but, scaling down production would decrease profits.
it'd be great if we could call up exxon, explain the crisis to them and have them scale down production. but, it's almost comically absurd.
again: we have better technology. but, it's less profitable. so, we need governments to develop it.
Commenter42
You get that the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere during that drive to work, don't you? It would be a cycle, where it's captured, turned into fuel, the fuel is burned, it's released again, the captured, and so on.
jessica murray
it'll never work like that. corporations are driven purely by profit motives.
there's absolutely no reason to hold on to obsolete technologies, other than an aversion to change.
to put it another way, you're putting faith in the corporate sector to regulate the carbon in the atmosphere. but, if that faith were well rooted, then we wouldn't be in this problem in the first place. it's not an answer. the answer is to stop polluting.
if you break it down, it's a technical question about demand. if you assume that demand keeps growing, it hits a point where we're sucking down more than we've emitted. that's why we need two hundred years to get there. but, it's inevitable.
in two hundred years, we might have anti-matter or something. fair enough. but, why bother? we have a plethora of other options.
Commenter42
I agree about the profit motives of corporations, but if the technology is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it to fuels whose consumption returns it to the atmosphere, how is the profit drive going to change that? That's what the technology is! I get that money can twist things along the way, but I don't get how this leads to too little CO2 in the atmosphere.
Demand for fuel means that fuel is being consumed. Consuming the fuel releases the CO2 back into the atmosphere. This is similar to trees sequestering CO2 until they die and decompose (or burn) and releasing it again. Unless someone is stockpiling such an enormous amount of fuel that it actually affects atmospheric concentrations (and the cost of this would be gigantic, with no purpose), then I don't see how your breakdown works. Even if this were to happen, there's a simple solution--burn it.
Somehow, you've managed to make me sound like a right-wing corporate shill, but that is not the case. I'm commenting only on the possibilities for such technology (I don't know whether it can even live up to these possibilities yet).
jessica murray
first, you always have to have more fuel available than is being consumed. second, pulling it in and out is not the same thing as letting it sit. i want to be clear that i understand your argument, but it's just sort of a naive understanding. if you envision the system as working as though you have a pipe from your car to the factory [a conceptual oversimplification that demonstrates the point], you can conceptualize how it breaks the greenhouse effect, even if emissions are continual.
where the serious potential problem arises is when the net pull begins to exceed the net output, since whatever year. let's say 1980. then, the net effect is actually a reversal of the greenhouse effect, and we should see global cooling.
and, if you assume rising demand and depleting carbon reserves, you can set the date on your calendar.
Commenter42
So you're saying that a simplified model of the system, a factory, a fuel pipe to a consuming device, a device that consume the fuel and releases the CO2 somehow leads to a breaking of the CO2 effect?? It's that simple model I'm using to say the opposite. Where is the break?
jessica murray
i'm sorry that you're not able to make sense of the points. i'll try a few different ways to present it.
you seem to be ignoring the fact that oil is a non-renewable resource, and that we're either very close to or past peak oil. if you set up a system like this, then the atmosphere eventually becomes the only remaining carbon reservoir, and the only way to continue to meet increasing demand is to pull an increasing net amount down. it's not and can't be carbon neutral, unless we halt all growth. and, as mentioned, that's in addition to the necessity of having fuel stores.
the "recycling" part of this [and there's energy in, so it's not really recycling, but let's ignore that] can only cycle around if we assume a stagnant economy. you can only get enough cycling to maintain existing demand. x out only allows for x in (under ideal technology). but x is consistently increasing. so, we will need to pull more and more down. and, the curve will eventually intersect, so long as demand continues to rise.
so, consider the pipe-to-factory conceptualization. that can meet existing net demand. but, as demand increases, we have to pull more and more down out of the atmospheric reservoir. the amount that we're cycling will continue to increase, as growth increases. but, we'll need to pull more and more down to meet new demand. then, we'll be looking at decreasing ppms and a threat of global cooling.
it's just putting off a transition we need to make, anyways. right now, we're hurdling towards venus; this will reverse the curve and send us hurdling towards mars. we need to find a way to maintain our middle point.
Thursday, October 8, 2015
as far as i can tell, what’s happening is that ndp voters in quebec are tuning out. as the ndp vote has fallen, the undecideds have risen steadily. this creates the illusion that the conservatives are rising, when in truth what you’re seeing is a decreased sample size. it’s misleading.
if these voters remain disengaged due to apathy, campaign length or whatever else is disillusioning them, all of the other parties will see a relative uptick as a consequence of reduced turnout. but, if they come back, it is the bloc and liberals that are most likely to benefit, and not the conservatives.
the votes that are tuning out seem to be left-leaning sovereigntists, which puts them in opposition to the conservatives over both quebec spectrums.
honestly? i think that what you’re seeing right now in the polls is what you’re getting, and it’s creating a mess of split votes that you’d need a phd in quebec electoral history to properly sort out. what that means is that we should brace ourselves for record low turnout in quebec.
this year’s wave is going to be a wave of apathy.
i think it’s even questionable whether they’re up in quebec at all; nanos, for example, has them back where they were and the so-called bump now looks like some random fluctuation.
my read is that he’s trying to make sure his base doesn’t fall part – that the niqab attack is less of an attempt to win votes and more of an attempt to not lose them. if that 30% fortress of his starts cracking, the right is in for a long struggle back to unity.
the idea is likely to sacrifice the red tories in favour of holding the reform base. it’s broadly an admission that he realizes he’s already lost.
www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-the-ndp-is-losing-quebec-voters/
if these voters remain disengaged due to apathy, campaign length or whatever else is disillusioning them, all of the other parties will see a relative uptick as a consequence of reduced turnout. but, if they come back, it is the bloc and liberals that are most likely to benefit, and not the conservatives.
the votes that are tuning out seem to be left-leaning sovereigntists, which puts them in opposition to the conservatives over both quebec spectrums.
honestly? i think that what you’re seeing right now in the polls is what you’re getting, and it’s creating a mess of split votes that you’d need a phd in quebec electoral history to properly sort out. what that means is that we should brace ourselves for record low turnout in quebec.
this year’s wave is going to be a wave of apathy.
i think it’s even questionable whether they’re up in quebec at all; nanos, for example, has them back where they were and the so-called bump now looks like some random fluctuation.
my read is that he’s trying to make sure his base doesn’t fall part – that the niqab attack is less of an attempt to win votes and more of an attempt to not lose them. if that 30% fortress of his starts cracking, the right is in for a long struggle back to unity.
the idea is likely to sacrifice the red tories in favour of holding the reform base. it’s broadly an admission that he realizes he’s already lost.
www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/why-the-ndp-is-losing-quebec-voters/
i don’t understand those quebec numbers, but alright. i guess it’s joined bc in the “more noise than signal” category. i’d love to see undecideds in quebec, specifically; i suspect it’s high…
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/after-20-day-lead-conservatives-now-find-themselves-in-a-statistical-tie/
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/after-20-day-lead-conservatives-now-find-themselves-in-a-statistical-tie/
so, what he's saying is that he doesn't know how to read the assessment. these issues have all been dealt with. the 95% confidence interval on human activity also comes with measurements of effects from other forces like the sun and ocean currents, which are at a very small level of impact since 1950, and even smaller since 1980.
the media needs to stop reporting this like it's an issue up for debate. rather, it needs to focus on explaining what the reports say, and on correcting people like this guy when they say things that are wrong.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/conservative-candidate-questions-whether-climate-change-is-human-caused-1.3262393
longtime_in
Are you familar with the work in the website
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp
Can you give your opinion?
jessica murray
i'm certainly aware that there's a concern about methane being released as the permafrost melts, and that it is in fact being observed in some places (by watching it bubble up out of the ocean). the fear is that this could set off a "feedback cycle". i'm not sure what kind of opinion you're phishing for, though.
longtime_in
Are you aware of the magnitude of carbon that scientist are talking about?
jessica murray
i'm aware that it's considered to be substantial. i'd have to look up exact numbers. but, i'm not sure where you're going with this.
the ipcc report quantifies concerns such as this and has concluded that they have not been a significant factor of observed warming up to this point. it is thought, however, that this may become a significant additional factor in the near future,
longtime_in
There has been measurable thawing of the perma frost. What if the thawing is to natural causes?
Read the debate on the life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
jessica murray
ok, so, as mentioned, what you're demonstrating is that you don't know how to read the ipcc reports. this is what the report does: it acknowledges observed warming and then tries to quantify the causes. it doesn't merely correlate the effects of warming with the increase in carbon. it rules out natural causes. it's the whole point.
it's a valid question, sure. but it's what the report is about. and, if you understand the report, you understand it rules that out.
ThinkorThwim
If the thawing were due to natural causes, there'd be some theory out right now that aligned more closely to the observed temperature fluctuations that we've already seen.
There isn't.
jessica murray
no. it's not just that. the report specifically rules natural causes out. it's the *point* of the report.
for example, one possibility is the sun. up to about 1950, we can actually see a pretty strong correlation of solar effects with global mean temperatures. and, that makes sense, in an atmosphere that is roughly in equilibrium, with natural cycles. but, since 1980, solar output has decreased, while temperatures have increased. that is, the warming has decoupled from solar effects. therefore, the observed warming is not due to solar effects. and that is a big part of what the assessment is all about.
it's not enough to correlate. that would be an error. they also have to rule out other possible causes - and they have, with a high degree of certainty.
it's the point.
so, saying "well, what if it's due to natural causes?" is merely not understanding what the report says.
and the media has done an absolutely terrible job of holding people to account for this.
longtime_in
Jessica, I like your intellectual capability. But I didn't say anything about temperature.
What I talked about is the debate on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. The current theory is postulated by deduction and not empirical evidence. Thawing perma frost offers further input to the debate on concentration.
I don't think we have enough time to discuss temperature change or the lack of it.
jessica murray
i'm really not able to make sense of what you're saying, or tie a claim about residence (which is a common and easily debunked skeptic argument) to the ipcc report, which rules out natural factors as the cause of the observed warming. i don't see the relevance of the distraction.
again: the purpose of the ipcc report is to rule out natural causes, and they've done so with a high degree of certainty.
longtime_in
Estimates of perma frost carbon are double current atmospheric mass. Perma frost has been thawing and only recently, scientists have postulated we will continue to see steady thawing through the end of the century. This release is NOT included in any of the existing climate models.
You asked what the relevance is of this distraction. Something that is a natural cause that has the potential to increase emissions by orders of magnitude greater than AGW emissions and is not in current climate models tells you the extent to which we are know what is drives "climate change"
jessica murray
i'm still not following you, and i'm going to avoid getting bogged down in specifics, because that's how these debates get sidetracked.
it's well understood that the release of methane stores from the arctic will likely have the effect of accelerating the warming, but i'm not able to tie that to the idea that the observed warming is cyclical. i mean, the idea of the feedback is itself contradictory to a cyclical model - it's understood as a breaking point, where the effects become irreversible.
so, what are you proposing is the cause of the melting that we're seeing in the arctic, if not emissions? are you even proposing that at all, or are you simply pointing out that there's a breaking point where the effect cannot be reversed?
and i again need to point out that the purpose of the ipcc report was to rule out all natural causes that we're aware of. i suppose you could argue that there's some possible natural cause that we're not aware of, but i hope you don't live your life on that principle - it would be quite daunting to accomplish simple tasks.
longtime_in
What I am pointing out is the need for caution in our policy response. There is a great deal we don't understand and our actions should not be injurious.
You said "the 95% confidence interval on human activity also comes with measurements of effects from other forces like the sun and ocean currents,"
I'm suggesting that scientists are not as certain what proportion of this is attributable to human activity and to what extent our actions will affect atmosheric concentration...
jessica murray
ok - i understand you now. you're suggesting that the ipcc report is not convincing because, despite it ruling out all known natural causes, it doesn't rule out unknown natural causes.
yet, you're seemingly unable to suggest what any of these unknown natural causes may be. nor is there any sort of evidence that these unknown unknowns may exist.
you'll have to excuse me for ducking out of the conversation at this point.
i will point out, though, that there is another option, although it's not talked about much. i'm getting the impression that the liberal platform may be skirting around this with it's green infrastructure bank, although it's not entirely clear what the scope they wish to use it in is. i think at the least if they could set it up it would help.
i'm in favour of a carbon tax, but not as a primary measure. i have little faith in carbon trading schemes; it just sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. before a carbon tax can really be useful, the infrastructure has to already exist. i'm not convinced by the idea that a carbon tax will spur the market to react; rather, i think people will eat the price increase and then complain about it. i paid close attention to the message board reaction to the carbon tax when it came in to bc. the hope is that people would say "i will change my consumption patterns". but, instead, you had people respond with things like "i'm going to have to pull my kids out of hockey to pay for my suv.". the intended reaction didn't seem as though it was coming from the policy - because the options to change aren't clear.
rather, i think the actual solution is massive state investment. the biggest problem is electricity generation; so, let's have the government spend billions on clean generation. the next biggest problem is transportation. so, let's get massive government expenditures on clean transportation options.
once the options are in place, then a carbon tax makes sense to try and coerce people to make the right choices.
but, a market solution like a tax or a cap and trade system on it's own is not something i think will be effective. we need state expenditures, first.
Honest Comment
Money talks (carbon tax), BS walks (cap and trade)
Scammers will run circles around bureaucrats trying to administer cap and trade.
If burning carbon costs more, business will find ways to reduce the burn and save a buck.
jessica murray
they'd be more likely to get together and collude with each other to all pass on the costs to consumers, who don't have another option.
i don't actually believe the ndp is serious about the cap and trade, anyways. they'll let the provinces deal with it. the real centerpiece of the ndp platform is an increase in oil taxes. their long term plan is to tax oil to pay for services. that's not consistent with the idea that they want to reduce emissions. rather, it suggests that they want to increase production so they can get more tax revenue out of it.
and, if you look at other issues of their platform, and the language mulcair uses, a level of consistency develops.
that's something that won't happen federally.
the media needs to stop reporting this like it's an issue up for debate. rather, it needs to focus on explaining what the reports say, and on correcting people like this guy when they say things that are wrong.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/conservative-candidate-questions-whether-climate-change-is-human-caused-1.3262393
longtime_in
Are you familar with the work in the website
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp
Can you give your opinion?
jessica murray
i'm certainly aware that there's a concern about methane being released as the permafrost melts, and that it is in fact being observed in some places (by watching it bubble up out of the ocean). the fear is that this could set off a "feedback cycle". i'm not sure what kind of opinion you're phishing for, though.
longtime_in
Are you aware of the magnitude of carbon that scientist are talking about?
jessica murray
i'm aware that it's considered to be substantial. i'd have to look up exact numbers. but, i'm not sure where you're going with this.
the ipcc report quantifies concerns such as this and has concluded that they have not been a significant factor of observed warming up to this point. it is thought, however, that this may become a significant additional factor in the near future,
longtime_in
There has been measurable thawing of the perma frost. What if the thawing is to natural causes?
Read the debate on the life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.
jessica murray
ok, so, as mentioned, what you're demonstrating is that you don't know how to read the ipcc reports. this is what the report does: it acknowledges observed warming and then tries to quantify the causes. it doesn't merely correlate the effects of warming with the increase in carbon. it rules out natural causes. it's the whole point.
it's a valid question, sure. but it's what the report is about. and, if you understand the report, you understand it rules that out.
ThinkorThwim
If the thawing were due to natural causes, there'd be some theory out right now that aligned more closely to the observed temperature fluctuations that we've already seen.
There isn't.
jessica murray
no. it's not just that. the report specifically rules natural causes out. it's the *point* of the report.
for example, one possibility is the sun. up to about 1950, we can actually see a pretty strong correlation of solar effects with global mean temperatures. and, that makes sense, in an atmosphere that is roughly in equilibrium, with natural cycles. but, since 1980, solar output has decreased, while temperatures have increased. that is, the warming has decoupled from solar effects. therefore, the observed warming is not due to solar effects. and that is a big part of what the assessment is all about.
it's not enough to correlate. that would be an error. they also have to rule out other possible causes - and they have, with a high degree of certainty.
it's the point.
so, saying "well, what if it's due to natural causes?" is merely not understanding what the report says.
and the media has done an absolutely terrible job of holding people to account for this.
longtime_in
Jessica, I like your intellectual capability. But I didn't say anything about temperature.
What I talked about is the debate on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. The current theory is postulated by deduction and not empirical evidence. Thawing perma frost offers further input to the debate on concentration.
I don't think we have enough time to discuss temperature change or the lack of it.
jessica murray
i'm really not able to make sense of what you're saying, or tie a claim about residence (which is a common and easily debunked skeptic argument) to the ipcc report, which rules out natural factors as the cause of the observed warming. i don't see the relevance of the distraction.
again: the purpose of the ipcc report is to rule out natural causes, and they've done so with a high degree of certainty.
longtime_in
Estimates of perma frost carbon are double current atmospheric mass. Perma frost has been thawing and only recently, scientists have postulated we will continue to see steady thawing through the end of the century. This release is NOT included in any of the existing climate models.
You asked what the relevance is of this distraction. Something that is a natural cause that has the potential to increase emissions by orders of magnitude greater than AGW emissions and is not in current climate models tells you the extent to which we are know what is drives "climate change"
jessica murray
i'm still not following you, and i'm going to avoid getting bogged down in specifics, because that's how these debates get sidetracked.
it's well understood that the release of methane stores from the arctic will likely have the effect of accelerating the warming, but i'm not able to tie that to the idea that the observed warming is cyclical. i mean, the idea of the feedback is itself contradictory to a cyclical model - it's understood as a breaking point, where the effects become irreversible.
so, what are you proposing is the cause of the melting that we're seeing in the arctic, if not emissions? are you even proposing that at all, or are you simply pointing out that there's a breaking point where the effect cannot be reversed?
and i again need to point out that the purpose of the ipcc report was to rule out all natural causes that we're aware of. i suppose you could argue that there's some possible natural cause that we're not aware of, but i hope you don't live your life on that principle - it would be quite daunting to accomplish simple tasks.
longtime_in
What I am pointing out is the need for caution in our policy response. There is a great deal we don't understand and our actions should not be injurious.
You said "the 95% confidence interval on human activity also comes with measurements of effects from other forces like the sun and ocean currents,"
I'm suggesting that scientists are not as certain what proportion of this is attributable to human activity and to what extent our actions will affect atmosheric concentration...
jessica murray
ok - i understand you now. you're suggesting that the ipcc report is not convincing because, despite it ruling out all known natural causes, it doesn't rule out unknown natural causes.
yet, you're seemingly unable to suggest what any of these unknown natural causes may be. nor is there any sort of evidence that these unknown unknowns may exist.
you'll have to excuse me for ducking out of the conversation at this point.
i will point out, though, that there is another option, although it's not talked about much. i'm getting the impression that the liberal platform may be skirting around this with it's green infrastructure bank, although it's not entirely clear what the scope they wish to use it in is. i think at the least if they could set it up it would help.
i'm in favour of a carbon tax, but not as a primary measure. i have little faith in carbon trading schemes; it just sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. before a carbon tax can really be useful, the infrastructure has to already exist. i'm not convinced by the idea that a carbon tax will spur the market to react; rather, i think people will eat the price increase and then complain about it. i paid close attention to the message board reaction to the carbon tax when it came in to bc. the hope is that people would say "i will change my consumption patterns". but, instead, you had people respond with things like "i'm going to have to pull my kids out of hockey to pay for my suv.". the intended reaction didn't seem as though it was coming from the policy - because the options to change aren't clear.
rather, i think the actual solution is massive state investment. the biggest problem is electricity generation; so, let's have the government spend billions on clean generation. the next biggest problem is transportation. so, let's get massive government expenditures on clean transportation options.
once the options are in place, then a carbon tax makes sense to try and coerce people to make the right choices.
but, a market solution like a tax or a cap and trade system on it's own is not something i think will be effective. we need state expenditures, first.
Honest Comment
Money talks (carbon tax), BS walks (cap and trade)
Scammers will run circles around bureaucrats trying to administer cap and trade.
If burning carbon costs more, business will find ways to reduce the burn and save a buck.
jessica murray
they'd be more likely to get together and collude with each other to all pass on the costs to consumers, who don't have another option.
i don't actually believe the ndp is serious about the cap and trade, anyways. they'll let the provinces deal with it. the real centerpiece of the ndp platform is an increase in oil taxes. their long term plan is to tax oil to pay for services. that's not consistent with the idea that they want to reduce emissions. rather, it suggests that they want to increase production so they can get more tax revenue out of it.
and, if you look at other issues of their platform, and the language mulcair uses, a level of consistency develops.
that's something that won't happen federally.
i applaud the government's thorough application of the law here, to ensure our safety. the child could be smuggling weapons in her diaper, or be carrying an ied in her soother. to give her fast track status would be age discrimination and unfair to the other applicants; she has no right to jump the queue ahead of anybody else.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bad-advice-family-stranded-south-africa-1.3261972
ChantalLeBouthi
You are sick
jessica murray
if you have ever held a child that age, you know just how likely it is that it's smuggling weapons of mass destruction in it's diaper, and an ied in it's mouth.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bad-advice-family-stranded-south-africa-1.3261972
ChantalLeBouthi
You are sick
jessica murray
if you have ever held a child that age, you know just how likely it is that it's smuggling weapons of mass destruction in it's diaper, and an ied in it's mouth.
the most successful tactic in reducing emissions is not going to be carbon trading schemes that just make criminals rich without affecting the environment, nor is it going to be putting in place "polluter pays" mechanisms that just raise prices by incorporating the fees into the cost of business. it's going to be actually building alternate infrastructure. on that point, this article fails to mention the infrastructure bank announced by the liberals, which has far more potential for real reductions than any carbon trading pyramid scheme scam.
the most important thing that we need to get through our heads to get out of the thatcher era and start moving forwards again is that market-based policies do not work. you cannot accomplish anything at all with tax cuts or by setting up trading schemes. we need direct action.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/ecojustice/election-climate-change_b_8258776.html
the most important thing that we need to get through our heads to get out of the thatcher era and start moving forwards again is that market-based policies do not work. you cannot accomplish anything at all with tax cuts or by setting up trading schemes. we need direct action.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/ecojustice/election-climate-change_b_8258776.html
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
you can bet that he'll sit on it, and the truth is that there's really not another option. mulcair can't vote for a deficit liberal budget, not after the stink he's made about it. you'll see the cons & ndp gang up at the first opportunity to nail the liberals on running a deficit, and we'll have an election over the first budget.
it's less that the platforms are dramatically different and more that they differ almost precisely on confidence issues.
what the governor-general needs to determine is who can get the confidence of the house. right now, nobody is going to get the confidence of the house. people need to get it into their head that a coalition cannot happen, and the media needs to stop confusing people.
the obvious comparison is clark. but, i think one might want to look at the mess in belgium a few years ago, where they went an extended period without a government. if the race doesn't break, that's what we're looking at.
right now, there's three options.
1) conservative majority
2) liberal majority
3) prorogue parliament for several months, and then call another election.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/election-2015-what-happens-if-none-of-the-parties-wins-a-majority-1.3261037
keithwilli
thats idiotic
4) a liberal & NDP minority that works together and rids us of Harper and perhaps makes a semi honest government
jessica murray
so, how are they going to run a deficit and balance the budget at the same time, exactly?
the idiot here is mulcair. he's boxed himself into a corner, and made the option impossible. i hope that there is a leadership review in the ndp very soon.
keithwilli
lol the same way every single other government has .
show me a federal government that has had a balanced budget
jessica murray
that isn't the point. mulcair can hardly spend the whole campaign yelling and screaming that he's going to balance the budget and "not even consider it a possibility" to run a deficit, and then vote for a liberal budget that purposefully is running a deficit. he'd might as well just got a tattoo on his forehead that says "what i say is meaningless".
for a coalition to work, mulcair would be required to step down immediately. that's not likely.
as stated: a liberal budget would be unable to pass in a minority government because the ndp would vote against it on grounds of fiscal conservatism.
a coalition is impossible. deal with it.
keithwilli
isnt the point?
your spouting about how they wont balance the budget when NONE do.
thats exactly the point now isnt it.
i think it should be law any party that wins has 45 days to bring in every change they promoted and if they fail then they are kicked out and the next on votes takes over.
they are all liars just which do we pick?
wont be Harper
we shall see.
i can 100% assure you justin wont get a majority.
he is most unlikely to even achieve a minority
jessica murray
ok. you may perhaps be unclear on the policies, although i've stated them.
- the liberals are promising to run a deficit. that is, they are promising to NOT balance the budget.
- the ndp are promising to balance the budget.
if the liberals win a minority, do you really believe that mulcair will open his mouth and swallow his leg? and, if he does so, do you expect him to be wearing a clown suit and be doing a jig at the same time?
he cannot and will not do that. and, the governor-general can consequently not conclude that the liberals can gain the confidence of the house.
at this point right now, the only way that anybody is going to be able to gain the confidence of the house is with a majority. and, there is no use in anybody trying to govern.
i have a hard time putting together the math that gives justin a majority as well, but if you want to get rid of harper then that's your only option - either this time around, or in the next election six months from now.
keithwilli
you seem to think you know it all and we shall see in 2 weeks wont we
jessica murray
i've got a crystal ball over in the corner, but i'm not jiving anybody with any cosmik debris. however, the flat reality is that it would be a tremendous act of political self-sacrifice on mulcair's behalf, and it strains credulity to suggest it's on the table.
keithwilli
well if they wont work together i fear we are doomed with another term from mr Harper.
i dont see a majority but i cant see him losing a minority
but i didnt honestly see the NDP winning in Alberta.
i think too many voted to have a strong opposition and it went over the top
jessica murray
i think there's an off chance that the ndp support in quebec could fall apart to the liberals' benefit. and, if it doesn't happen this election, i think quebeckers are politically savvy enough to make sure it happens in six months.
harper's going to be sitting and waiting for ontario to swing. i don't think that happens, either.
but, he can't support the purposeful deficit spending, not after his campaign's focus. and, don't expect him to.
the alberta ndp really benefited strongly from pc/wildrose splits.
William Hughes
I disagree. Mulcair has many options. e.g.
The people have spoken, Reluctantly I...
A bit of creative accounting. No deficit is predicted
This is not good, but an immediate election, that would probably solve nothing would be ever worse.
Reluctantly I ...
jessica murray
listen.
they put the options down on the table.
if you want deficit spending to kickstart the economy, you vote for the liberals; this is their plan, and they've been clear as day about it. if you're more concerned about ensuring that the budget is balanced, and want corporate tax boosts, then you vote for the ndp. they've been clear that this is their plan, as well.
i don't know what else they can do. they've posted platforms. they've run events. they've made it clear that they're not the same party - that they have different priorities and will behave differently in office. but, nobody is listening to what they're saying.
what do you want? figure it out and vote accordingly. don't vote for the guy saying he's going to balance the budget and expect him to run a deficit, or vote for the guy saying corporate tax increases are off the table and expect him to bend on it.
it's some kind of magical thinking, some kind of idea that the political spectrum will be what you imagine you'd like it to be, rather than what the facts in the platform tell you it is. and, this is normal, unfortunately. it somehow led to the anti-war movement voting for obama, for example, while he was explicitly campaigning on blowing up pakistan. and, then everybody scratched their heads and wondered how that happened.
again: the policy positions are on the table. they're clear. read them. decide which you prefer.
do not make things up in your head, and hope the parties can read your mind and create your fantasies.
it's less that the platforms are dramatically different and more that they differ almost precisely on confidence issues.
what the governor-general needs to determine is who can get the confidence of the house. right now, nobody is going to get the confidence of the house. people need to get it into their head that a coalition cannot happen, and the media needs to stop confusing people.
the obvious comparison is clark. but, i think one might want to look at the mess in belgium a few years ago, where they went an extended period without a government. if the race doesn't break, that's what we're looking at.
right now, there's three options.
1) conservative majority
2) liberal majority
3) prorogue parliament for several months, and then call another election.
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/election-2015-what-happens-if-none-of-the-parties-wins-a-majority-1.3261037
keithwilli
thats idiotic
4) a liberal & NDP minority that works together and rids us of Harper and perhaps makes a semi honest government
jessica murray
so, how are they going to run a deficit and balance the budget at the same time, exactly?
the idiot here is mulcair. he's boxed himself into a corner, and made the option impossible. i hope that there is a leadership review in the ndp very soon.
keithwilli
lol the same way every single other government has .
show me a federal government that has had a balanced budget
jessica murray
that isn't the point. mulcair can hardly spend the whole campaign yelling and screaming that he's going to balance the budget and "not even consider it a possibility" to run a deficit, and then vote for a liberal budget that purposefully is running a deficit. he'd might as well just got a tattoo on his forehead that says "what i say is meaningless".
for a coalition to work, mulcair would be required to step down immediately. that's not likely.
as stated: a liberal budget would be unable to pass in a minority government because the ndp would vote against it on grounds of fiscal conservatism.
a coalition is impossible. deal with it.
keithwilli
isnt the point?
your spouting about how they wont balance the budget when NONE do.
thats exactly the point now isnt it.
i think it should be law any party that wins has 45 days to bring in every change they promoted and if they fail then they are kicked out and the next on votes takes over.
they are all liars just which do we pick?
wont be Harper
we shall see.
i can 100% assure you justin wont get a majority.
he is most unlikely to even achieve a minority
jessica murray
ok. you may perhaps be unclear on the policies, although i've stated them.
- the liberals are promising to run a deficit. that is, they are promising to NOT balance the budget.
- the ndp are promising to balance the budget.
if the liberals win a minority, do you really believe that mulcair will open his mouth and swallow his leg? and, if he does so, do you expect him to be wearing a clown suit and be doing a jig at the same time?
he cannot and will not do that. and, the governor-general can consequently not conclude that the liberals can gain the confidence of the house.
at this point right now, the only way that anybody is going to be able to gain the confidence of the house is with a majority. and, there is no use in anybody trying to govern.
i have a hard time putting together the math that gives justin a majority as well, but if you want to get rid of harper then that's your only option - either this time around, or in the next election six months from now.
keithwilli
you seem to think you know it all and we shall see in 2 weeks wont we
jessica murray
i've got a crystal ball over in the corner, but i'm not jiving anybody with any cosmik debris. however, the flat reality is that it would be a tremendous act of political self-sacrifice on mulcair's behalf, and it strains credulity to suggest it's on the table.
keithwilli
well if they wont work together i fear we are doomed with another term from mr Harper.
i dont see a majority but i cant see him losing a minority
but i didnt honestly see the NDP winning in Alberta.
i think too many voted to have a strong opposition and it went over the top
jessica murray
i think there's an off chance that the ndp support in quebec could fall apart to the liberals' benefit. and, if it doesn't happen this election, i think quebeckers are politically savvy enough to make sure it happens in six months.
harper's going to be sitting and waiting for ontario to swing. i don't think that happens, either.
but, he can't support the purposeful deficit spending, not after his campaign's focus. and, don't expect him to.
the alberta ndp really benefited strongly from pc/wildrose splits.
William Hughes
I disagree. Mulcair has many options. e.g.
The people have spoken, Reluctantly I...
A bit of creative accounting. No deficit is predicted
This is not good, but an immediate election, that would probably solve nothing would be ever worse.
Reluctantly I ...
jessica murray
listen.
they put the options down on the table.
if you want deficit spending to kickstart the economy, you vote for the liberals; this is their plan, and they've been clear as day about it. if you're more concerned about ensuring that the budget is balanced, and want corporate tax boosts, then you vote for the ndp. they've been clear that this is their plan, as well.
i don't know what else they can do. they've posted platforms. they've run events. they've made it clear that they're not the same party - that they have different priorities and will behave differently in office. but, nobody is listening to what they're saying.
what do you want? figure it out and vote accordingly. don't vote for the guy saying he's going to balance the budget and expect him to run a deficit, or vote for the guy saying corporate tax increases are off the table and expect him to bend on it.
it's some kind of magical thinking, some kind of idea that the political spectrum will be what you imagine you'd like it to be, rather than what the facts in the platform tell you it is. and, this is normal, unfortunately. it somehow led to the anti-war movement voting for obama, for example, while he was explicitly campaigning on blowing up pakistan. and, then everybody scratched their heads and wondered how that happened.
again: the policy positions are on the table. they're clear. read them. decide which you prefer.
do not make things up in your head, and hope the parties can read your mind and create your fantasies.
off the post
Great. Please explain why the NDP helped kill the Kelowna Accord.
jessica murray
the ndp learned in the 70s that propping up the liberals doesn't get them anywhere, because the liberals just end up getting credit for ndp ideas. so, they changed tactics. what they were hoping was that putting the conservatives in power would allow them to wipe the slate clean and present themselves as an alternative to the conservatives.
the ndp will never win an election with the liberals in power and they know that. their only chance is to ensure that they're running against the conservatives. and, the fact is that this tactic nearly worked.
we saw the same thing in the last ontario election, but we got a different response because vast swaths of the electorate seemed to clue in to the tactic.
but, it was a step into the void for the ndp. it was at that moment that they ceased being the conscience of the nation and became just another cynical political party that's willing to do anything to gain power.
if the ndp were the party of principled ideas that they were in the past, we wouldn't be having this discussion. but, that's ancient history, now. today, the ndp's primary strategic goal is to prevent the liberals from forming a government, because they understand that they cannot win an election under the circumstances that the liberals are in power. huge swaths of voters will vote liberal to prevent the conservatives from winning. the ndp have to be fighting against the conservatives to have a serious chance of winning.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-indigenous-health-education-1.3260438
this ought to be a non-issue. we're talking about drinking water, here.
and, before people start talking about costs, ask yourself the following question: how much do you think reparations would cost? i'll give you a guess: it's measured in trillions. a few billions for fundamental infrastructure is a bargain. it's quite literally the least we can do.
the liberals and ndp are on the same page here. it should be a consensus issue. the bigger question is why the conservatives aren't.
EvenKeel
How do you know that many FN have not already been given billions to cover the cost of this, but just chose not to use it for providing good water to their people.
jessica murray
well, that's an empirical question. you have the burden of proof, as you made the claim. go for it.
Great. Please explain why the NDP helped kill the Kelowna Accord.
jessica murray
the ndp learned in the 70s that propping up the liberals doesn't get them anywhere, because the liberals just end up getting credit for ndp ideas. so, they changed tactics. what they were hoping was that putting the conservatives in power would allow them to wipe the slate clean and present themselves as an alternative to the conservatives.
the ndp will never win an election with the liberals in power and they know that. their only chance is to ensure that they're running against the conservatives. and, the fact is that this tactic nearly worked.
we saw the same thing in the last ontario election, but we got a different response because vast swaths of the electorate seemed to clue in to the tactic.
but, it was a step into the void for the ndp. it was at that moment that they ceased being the conscience of the nation and became just another cynical political party that's willing to do anything to gain power.
if the ndp were the party of principled ideas that they were in the past, we wouldn't be having this discussion. but, that's ancient history, now. today, the ndp's primary strategic goal is to prevent the liberals from forming a government, because they understand that they cannot win an election under the circumstances that the liberals are in power. huge swaths of voters will vote liberal to prevent the conservatives from winning. the ndp have to be fighting against the conservatives to have a serious chance of winning.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-indigenous-health-education-1.3260438
this ought to be a non-issue. we're talking about drinking water, here.
and, before people start talking about costs, ask yourself the following question: how much do you think reparations would cost? i'll give you a guess: it's measured in trillions. a few billions for fundamental infrastructure is a bargain. it's quite literally the least we can do.
the liberals and ndp are on the same page here. it should be a consensus issue. the bigger question is why the conservatives aren't.
EvenKeel
How do you know that many FN have not already been given billions to cover the cost of this, but just chose not to use it for providing good water to their people.
jessica murray
well, that's an empirical question. you have the burden of proof, as you made the claim. go for it.
the liberals can win outright in the gta and montreal, and it might hold him to a minority, but they're going to need a little help on the split to actually win. under normal circumstances, that would seem impossible, but there's a new factor, now, that could help them on the split.
...the tpp. mulcair is not likely to win these seats. but, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a tory--->ndp swing in some areas as a reaction to supply management could elect some liberals. i don't expect any of the models to pick that up. and, i would expect that the polling in these regions is fairly low - partly because nobody expects anybody but the tories to win. but, it's a serious wildcard. it's not going to sweep the province like chretien managed to on the reform-tory split, but it could produce the odd upset. there's a number of these rural ridings where the liberals can often get over 30%. these are in a ring around the gta. like bay of quinte, or haldimand-norfolk. these should be monitored closely for upticks in ndp support.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-toronto-oct6-1.3259332
...the tpp. mulcair is not likely to win these seats. but, it's not outside the realm of possibility that a tory--->ndp swing in some areas as a reaction to supply management could elect some liberals. i don't expect any of the models to pick that up. and, i would expect that the polling in these regions is fairly low - partly because nobody expects anybody but the tories to win. but, it's a serious wildcard. it's not going to sweep the province like chretien managed to on the reform-tory split, but it could produce the odd upset. there's a number of these rural ridings where the liberals can often get over 30%. these are in a ring around the gta. like bay of quinte, or haldimand-norfolk. these should be monitored closely for upticks in ndp support.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-toronto-oct6-1.3259332
an interesting fact...
when 65 was introduced as the retirement age, it was also the average life expectancy. so, if you think 67 is bad, keep in mind that if the original logic of retirement held, it would be increased to 82.
that says a lot about the medical advancements we've achieved since then, though, doesn't it?
as a younger person, i want to chime in that we need to find creative ways to cut costs while maintaining proper levels of services, merely than just throw money at it. i don't want to sound bitter, but the baby boomers have not, broadly, made the kind of compromises that their parents or grandparents made. they were and remain the 'me' generation. they're going to demand anything and everything; and i've personally had a hard time explaining the economics of the situation to the older people that i know. how wages have not kept up with inflation, for example. they don't get it.
we're not going to get to an answer by taxing much less wealthy young people to pay costs for far more wealthy older people. i don't want to become a wage slave to the health care system, and watch the economy collapse under high tax rates to install jacuzzis into old folks home. rather, i might suggest that, because they have all the wealth, and they've sat on it, and they won't pass it down, it's going to fall to they themselves to fund the bulk of the costs. government's role needs to be to direct the boomer's own wealth into their own care arrangements, rather than pass the costs down. they haven't passed their wealth down.
and, understand that i'm presenting this in rational and reasonable terms. the angry twenty-something that's living under a bridge, squeezed between student loan payments and old folks taxes in a stagnant economy, is not going to be so clear-headed.
i think it's important that the system do what is required to adjust. the values of the canada health act are important to me.
but, i think it's equally important that the economic reality be approached head-on, and that the burden of this demographic problem not fall squarely on the laps of younger people, who are already facing decreased opportunities and higher debt loads, due largely to the decisions that the boomers made.
creative ways to reduce costs would include things like home care, low-rent retirement homes and perhaps more specialized elderly care operations, that take the issues out of the primary care stream. the parties have come up with some alright ideas already. i'm not an expert, here; my suggestions are of limited value. studying the issue would be a good idea.
but, a very bad approach is to expect young people to simply carry the tax burden. the outcome of such an approach will create serious economic and social problems. it's a non-starter.
i would support an "elderly health tax" that is something like a tobin tax. but the main thrust of thought needs to be to find ways to channel the boomers' own wealth into their own health care costs.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-ndp-health-plan-demographic-bomb-1.3259569
when 65 was introduced as the retirement age, it was also the average life expectancy. so, if you think 67 is bad, keep in mind that if the original logic of retirement held, it would be increased to 82.
that says a lot about the medical advancements we've achieved since then, though, doesn't it?
as a younger person, i want to chime in that we need to find creative ways to cut costs while maintaining proper levels of services, merely than just throw money at it. i don't want to sound bitter, but the baby boomers have not, broadly, made the kind of compromises that their parents or grandparents made. they were and remain the 'me' generation. they're going to demand anything and everything; and i've personally had a hard time explaining the economics of the situation to the older people that i know. how wages have not kept up with inflation, for example. they don't get it.
we're not going to get to an answer by taxing much less wealthy young people to pay costs for far more wealthy older people. i don't want to become a wage slave to the health care system, and watch the economy collapse under high tax rates to install jacuzzis into old folks home. rather, i might suggest that, because they have all the wealth, and they've sat on it, and they won't pass it down, it's going to fall to they themselves to fund the bulk of the costs. government's role needs to be to direct the boomer's own wealth into their own care arrangements, rather than pass the costs down. they haven't passed their wealth down.
and, understand that i'm presenting this in rational and reasonable terms. the angry twenty-something that's living under a bridge, squeezed between student loan payments and old folks taxes in a stagnant economy, is not going to be so clear-headed.
i think it's important that the system do what is required to adjust. the values of the canada health act are important to me.
but, i think it's equally important that the economic reality be approached head-on, and that the burden of this demographic problem not fall squarely on the laps of younger people, who are already facing decreased opportunities and higher debt loads, due largely to the decisions that the boomers made.
creative ways to reduce costs would include things like home care, low-rent retirement homes and perhaps more specialized elderly care operations, that take the issues out of the primary care stream. the parties have come up with some alright ideas already. i'm not an expert, here; my suggestions are of limited value. studying the issue would be a good idea.
but, a very bad approach is to expect young people to simply carry the tax burden. the outcome of such an approach will create serious economic and social problems. it's a non-starter.
i would support an "elderly health tax" that is something like a tobin tax. but the main thrust of thought needs to be to find ways to channel the boomers' own wealth into their own health care costs.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-tom-mulcair-ndp-health-plan-demographic-bomb-1.3259569
you see this narrative jump up from time to time: this idea that the problem with capitalism is that it is not really capitalism, and that we need real capitalism...
but, reforms made by both the roosevelts were rooted in the idea that markets are impossible, which, by the way, is what they taught me in first-year economics: that the idea of market equilibrium in prefect competition is a naive, utopian, mathematical fantasy and that the reality is that a perfectly free market will *always* quickly combine into an oligopoly or monopoly (which are basically the same thing...) through the collusion of so-called competitors. self-interest seeks to avoid competition, even if it results in a short-term loss; competition is purely destructive, from the top's perspective. collusion is always preferable. so, rather than get market capitalism, you get cartel systems that snuff out competition as soon as it appears.
what bothers me is that this is an insight that was arrived at 100 years ago and is taught in first year, but that the vast majority of the population seems to somehow still be unaware of. holding to market theory is as awful as holding to creationism. it's impossible.
if there's no such thing as a truly free market in real life, you're left with two options if you want to stick with something like the status quo.
you can do what the first roosevelt did, which is smash the cartels up and then follow that by what the second roosevelt did, which is put rules in place to try and create a pretend free market. that is, if spontaneous markets are impossible, then we can create make believe markets that function in the way we think spontaneous markets ought to, but in truth can't. we've learned that this just breeds corruption that undoes the regulation via capturing the agencies, and results in a re-establishment of the cartel system through stealth - which is what we have today.
the other option is to stop pretending that market theory is worthwhile, and just revert back to good old state-funded mercantilism.
the reality is that all three options lead to the same outcome: cartel systems protected by the state. because this is what capitalism actually is.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/robert-reich-saving-capitalism-tpp-1.3256940
but, reforms made by both the roosevelts were rooted in the idea that markets are impossible, which, by the way, is what they taught me in first-year economics: that the idea of market equilibrium in prefect competition is a naive, utopian, mathematical fantasy and that the reality is that a perfectly free market will *always* quickly combine into an oligopoly or monopoly (which are basically the same thing...) through the collusion of so-called competitors. self-interest seeks to avoid competition, even if it results in a short-term loss; competition is purely destructive, from the top's perspective. collusion is always preferable. so, rather than get market capitalism, you get cartel systems that snuff out competition as soon as it appears.
what bothers me is that this is an insight that was arrived at 100 years ago and is taught in first year, but that the vast majority of the population seems to somehow still be unaware of. holding to market theory is as awful as holding to creationism. it's impossible.
if there's no such thing as a truly free market in real life, you're left with two options if you want to stick with something like the status quo.
you can do what the first roosevelt did, which is smash the cartels up and then follow that by what the second roosevelt did, which is put rules in place to try and create a pretend free market. that is, if spontaneous markets are impossible, then we can create make believe markets that function in the way we think spontaneous markets ought to, but in truth can't. we've learned that this just breeds corruption that undoes the regulation via capturing the agencies, and results in a re-establishment of the cartel system through stealth - which is what we have today.
the other option is to stop pretending that market theory is worthwhile, and just revert back to good old state-funded mercantilism.
the reality is that all three options lead to the same outcome: cartel systems protected by the state. because this is what capitalism actually is.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/robert-reich-saving-capitalism-tpp-1.3256940
see, again, i’m starting to wonder if you need to interpret the undecideds differently when measuring over ivr – like, literally, rather than throwaway as following the same distribution. at 7.7% undecided, scaling down puts the conservatives at 32.4 absolute response rate – which is consistent with the other numbers, although it’s also almost in the margin of error. even 33-34% doesn’t strike me as inconsistent, it’s the consistently lower liberal numbers that are weird and, regionally, that seems to be in bc and quebec. i’m even willing to accept that nanos may be overweighting the liberals in bc. but, what was the sordid story about underweighting the liberals in bc, again? aha. but, then if you scale them down you get to 28.5, which you can the scale back up to the mid 30s (and there’s even a bit room to give to the ndp).
i know this is being very creative and everything, but it does make a lot of sense if you consider that actually talking to somebody is going to get a different undecided response than a telephone system. i mean, yeah: i’m just playing with the numbers. but it adds up. and it makes sense.
that said, it might not be generalizable, it might just be the specific nature of this election, where support for the incumbents is so deeply entrenched, and support for the two opposition parties is so uncommitted.
it’s an idea, to consider, anyways.
although i’m curious about what an “invalid response” is. 11% is a lot. please shoot me an email if you decide to respond in this space, so i can come back and see it.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stable-but-narrowing-conservative-lead-as-ndp-in-a-holding-pattern-well-back-of-leaders/
i know this is being very creative and everything, but it does make a lot of sense if you consider that actually talking to somebody is going to get a different undecided response than a telephone system. i mean, yeah: i’m just playing with the numbers. but it adds up. and it makes sense.
that said, it might not be generalizable, it might just be the specific nature of this election, where support for the incumbents is so deeply entrenched, and support for the two opposition parties is so uncommitted.
it’s an idea, to consider, anyways.
although i’m curious about what an “invalid response” is. 11% is a lot. please shoot me an email if you decide to respond in this space, so i can come back and see it.
www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stable-but-narrowing-conservative-lead-as-ndp-in-a-holding-pattern-well-back-of-leaders/
maybe you could defend her right to personhood by telling her what to think, too, considering that you think you have the right to tell her what to wear.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/fifty-years-in-canada-and-now-i-feel-like-a-second-class-citizen/article26691065/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/fifty-years-in-canada-and-now-i-feel-like-a-second-class-citizen/article26691065/
are we going to stop teaching evolution, too?
it's the kids that have fundamentalist parents that are the most important to reach.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/two-toronto-schools-vandalized-in-protest-of-new-sex-ed-curriculum/article26275255/
it's the kids that have fundamentalist parents that are the most important to reach.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/two-toronto-schools-vandalized-in-protest-of-new-sex-ed-curriculum/article26275255/
i understand that it's considered unlikely, but i'm still wondering whether all that warm water in the pacific may bring some storms into the west coast - maybe a little further south. it's not a great thought, but maybe a hurricane slamming los angeles would wake some people up. it has to be in the realm of possible ramifications of long term climate change...
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/hurricane-oho-could-bring-gusty-winds-and-heavy-rain-to-bc/58224/
www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/hurricane-oho-could-bring-gusty-winds-and-heavy-rain-to-bc/58224/
that's kind of twisting it around, kate. you vote on the tpp first, then write the budget that may or may not have measures in it. you don't write the budget with the assumption the tpp is passed, then vote on it and claim it's a budgetary issue. by that logic, any vote with funding attached to it is a budget issue?
i'm not convinced that what trudeau says really justifies the headline. but, voters should be voting on the assumption that the liberals will back the deal. they back most trade deals.
i do, however, agree that a referendum is a good idea.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/07/trudeau-tpp-_n_8257950.html
i'm not convinced that what trudeau says really justifies the headline. but, voters should be voting on the assumption that the liberals will back the deal. they back most trade deals.
i do, however, agree that a referendum is a good idea.
www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/07/trudeau-tpp-_n_8257950.html
i've long assumed that netanyahu's seemingly ridiculous analysis of iran (according to mossad, even) is just internal israeli politics - that it's just typical fear mongering, in order to present himself as a protector of israel. the need for an external enemy. etc. there's holes in this, but a better explanation has not been apparent.
but, chomsky brings up some points here that provide for somewhat of an alternate explanation: that there may be a faction of the israeli elite that continues to see iran as competition for preferred american client state. this might seem remote to somebody that was actually born after 1979. but, if you realize that the shah was just as much of an american client state as israel has been since, and perhaps even that israel has taken on responsibilities that america previously designated to the shah, then any thawing of relations - however miniscule - are perhaps a legitimate threat to israeli security. not in the sense that iran is a serious threat to israel in any direct way, but in the sense that it may balance american interest and that is a threat to israel.
of course, this isn't actually happening. and i couldn't imagine any sober analysis concluding there's any threat of it happening. but the threat of the threat of it happening is perhaps in itself enough to require an israeli policy that attempts to hamper even the most minimal of steps towards normalization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yiaA1HbhhY
but, chomsky brings up some points here that provide for somewhat of an alternate explanation: that there may be a faction of the israeli elite that continues to see iran as competition for preferred american client state. this might seem remote to somebody that was actually born after 1979. but, if you realize that the shah was just as much of an american client state as israel has been since, and perhaps even that israel has taken on responsibilities that america previously designated to the shah, then any thawing of relations - however miniscule - are perhaps a legitimate threat to israeli security. not in the sense that iran is a serious threat to israel in any direct way, but in the sense that it may balance american interest and that is a threat to israel.
of course, this isn't actually happening. and i couldn't imagine any sober analysis concluding there's any threat of it happening. but the threat of the threat of it happening is perhaps in itself enough to require an israeli policy that attempts to hamper even the most minimal of steps towards normalization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yiaA1HbhhY
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)