Welcome to B.C., Premier Notley, or, does the NDP have a death wish?

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

My guess is that in two and a half years there is going to be only one NDP government in all of Canada and that government will be west of Saskatchewan and not in Alberta.

Where?

BC

Unionist

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

My guess is that in two and a half years there is going to be only one NDP government in all of Canada and that government will be west of Saskatchewan and not in Alberta.

Where?

BC

Coulda been Yukon...

Unionist

JKR wrote:

Unfortunately, I think if Notley didn't support the pipeline, the Alberta NDP would fall way back into fourth place in Alberta politics behind the PC's, Wildrose, and even the Alberta Liberals. 

And I think if Hillary hadn't peppered her campaign speeches with racist, misogynist, anti-immigrant rants, she might have lost the election.

Oh wait...

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

My guess is that in two and a half years there is going to be only one NDP government in all of Canada and that government will be west of Saskatchewan and not in Alberta.

Where?

BC

Coulda been Yukon...

They have a Liberal government.

Unionist

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

My guess is that in two and a half years there is going to be only one NDP government in all of Canada and that government will be west of Saskatchewan and not in Alberta.

Where?

BC

Coulda been Yukon...

They have a Liberal government.

And given that they were just elected last month, there's unlikely to be an NDP govt there in 2 1/2 years... Well played, JKR! As always.

Basement Dweller

Maybe Notley came here to help Horgan, and at the same time looking like she at least tried to sell it. Why not? They are old buddies. He looks decisive now in saying "no" to this.

NorthReport

 

So with the NO JOBS, par for the course NDP, who will be replacing Horgan when the inevitable decisiveness occurs the evening of May 9th?

David Eby? Ha! Ha! Ha!

What will it be, 20 years of  straight raw political power for the right-wing in BC by 2021?

Most voters in BC now have little time for the brain-dead BC NDP.  

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Unfortunately, when you get an NDP government you get a capital strike shortly thereafter. Out of spite, business pulls out and jobs are lost. Unemployment rises, and then the reactionaries win the next time. We saw it with Harris after Rae in Canada, Thatcher after Callaghan in the UK, Reagan after Carter in the US...

The NDP have to be honest that if they win, the capitalists are going to screw them, and alternative means will have to be found to increase economic activity through public investments, government spending, etc.

Trying to pretend to be another capitalist party just isn't going to cut it.

kropotkin1951

montrealer58 wrote:

Unfortunately, when you get an NDP government you get a capital strike shortly thereafter. Out of spite, business pulls out and jobs are lost. Unemployment rises, and then the reactionaries win the next time. We saw it with Harris after Rae in Canada, Thatcher after Callaghan in the UK, Reagan after Carter in the US...

The NDP have to be honest that if they win, the capitalists are going to screw them, and alternative means will have to be found to increase economic activity through public investments, government spending, etc.

Trying to pretend to be another capitalist party just isn't going to cut it.

You forgot BC under Harcourt and Clark. The business class not only conducted a capital strike it took out attack ads blaming the NDP.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

My guess is that in two and a half years there is going to be only one NDP government in all of Canada and that government will be west of Saskatchewan and not in Alberta.

Where?

BC

Coulda been Yukon...

They have a Liberal government.

And given that they were just elected last month, there's unlikely to be an NDP govt there in 2 1/2 years... Well played, JKR! As always.

Zeus knows I try.

jjuares

Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly.

National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..no pipelines are safe and certainly not in alberta. all smoke and mirrors trying to convince others to buy into them. burnaby has a history that it remembers of a pipeline bursting. 

Three Weeks Later, Trilogy Admits Pipeline Spilled 250,000 Litres of Oil in Alberta Wetland

quote:

According to the Alberta Energy Regulator the company’s leak detection system did not notify Trilogy of the spill. Instead inspectors doing a routine flyover spotted the leak from a helicopter, Williams said.

In July, the regulator requested pipeline operators to improve their leak detection systems after a review of 23 major pipeline spills found spill detection was unnecessarily delayed by poor training and a lack of monitoring.

On average it took pipeline operators 48 days to respond to and isolate leaking pipelines, the regulator found.

It is unknown when the spill from Trilogy’s remote pipeline began.

According to Williams, the company, in coordination with the AER, has shut in and excavated the portion of the pipeline responsible for the leak.

He said Trilogy has sent a two-metre section of the six-inch pipe to a laboratory in Edmonton for inspection.

“That is something that could take as long as a month” to review, Williams said.

Unionist

jjuares wrote:
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

Awww, poor little pro-oil-baron chiefs afraid of being stigmatized.

jjuares

Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

Awww, poor little pro-oil-baron chiefs afraid of being stigmatized.


I love how we are pro-Indigenous here......until they have a viewpoint we don't like and then we feel perfectly okay to trash them. I mean what does he know about the needs of his community compared to a bunch of leftists sitting in their armchair thousands of kilometres away. Well there are many sides to this debate, not that you would know it listening to some of the debate. Not once I have smeared and trashed any aboriginal leader.I just find it unseemly, dare I say it Harperish even. If you read the article you will see the comments of an anti-pipileine aboriginal leader. He refuses to say any disparaging comment about any aboriginal leaders on the other side. Maybe that could be an important lesson.

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

Awww, poor little pro-oil-baron chiefs afraid of being stigmatized.

I love how we are pro-Indigenous here......until they have a viewpoint we don't like and then we feel perfectly okay to trash them. I mean what does he know about the needs of his community compared to a bunch of leftists sitting in their armchair thousands of kilometres away. Well there are many sides to this debate, not that you would know it listening to some of the debate. Not once I have smeared and trashed any aboriginal leader.I just find it unseemly, dare I say it Harperish even. If you read the article you will see the comments of an anti-pipileine aboriginal leader. He refuses to say any disparaging comment about any aboriginal leaders on the other side. Maybe that could be an important lesson.

I agree -- and a number have made it clear that they are being railroaded. If they do not agree they get to have no say in it and they know it is going ahead anyway.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

Awww, poor little pro-oil-baron chiefs afraid of being stigmatized.

I love how we are pro-Indigenous here......until they have a viewpoint we don't like and then we feel perfectly okay to trash them. I mean what does he know about the needs of his community compared to a bunch of leftists sitting in their armchair thousands of kilometres away. Well there are many sides to this debate, not that you would know it listening to some of the debate. Not once I have smeared and trashed any aboriginal leader.I just find it unseemly, dare I say it Harperish even. If you read the article you will see the comments of an anti-pipileine aboriginal leader. He refuses to say any disparaging comment about any aboriginal leaders on the other side. Maybe that could be an important lesson.

I agree -- and a number have made it clear that they are being railroaded. If they do not agree they get to have no say in it and they know it is going ahead anyway.


I think you have misinterpreted the article. This is about chiefs in favour of the pipelines but feel they can't speak up. This comes from the national chief no less.

NorthReport

Thanks josh!

josh wrote:

Just trying to get the thread back on topic. ;)

NorthReport

First Nations people like any other segment of society are divided over the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion project

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Unfortunately for the NDP, the odds being stacked against them on a daily basis by Canada's media including the CBC, Canadian society will not be cutting them much slack

The number one issue facing Canadians is jobs and it is almost always jobs and/or the economy which decide how people vote
The brilliant NDP have decided that it is not jobs and I say to the NDP you are wasting your time I prefer not to waste my own time supporting a political party that is hellbent on losing one election after another until the Cows come home

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

Awww, poor little pro-oil-baron chiefs afraid of being stigmatized.

I love how we are pro-Indigenous here......until they have a viewpoint we don't like and then we feel perfectly okay to trash them. I mean what does he know about the needs of his community compared to a bunch of leftists sitting in their armchair thousands of kilometres away. Well there are many sides to this debate, not that you would know it listening to some of the debate. Not once I have smeared and trashed any aboriginal leader.I just find it unseemly, dare I say it Harperish even. If you read the article you will see the comments of an anti-pipileine aboriginal leader. He refuses to say any disparaging comment about any aboriginal leaders on the other side. Maybe that could be an important lesson.

I agree -- and a number have made it clear that they are being railroaded. If they do not agree they get to have no say in it and they know it is going ahead anyway.

I think you have misinterpreted the article. This is about chiefs in favour of the pipelines but feel they can't speak up. This comes from the national chief no less.

I did not get this from the article. -- these were interviews on the CBC where they said they felt that they had no choice but to agree or be excluded from the process.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Unionist wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Chiefs supportive of Trans Mountain have avoided the media this week at the special assembly. National Chief Perry Bellegarde has said these chiefs are afraid to speak for fear of being "stigmatized."
">http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-trans-mountain-first-nation...

Awww, poor little pro-oil-baron chiefs afraid of being stigmatized.

I love how we are pro-Indigenous here......until they have a viewpoint we don't like and then we feel perfectly okay to trash them. I mean what does he know about the needs of his community compared to a bunch of leftists sitting in their armchair thousands of kilometres away. Well there are many sides to this debate, not that you would know it listening to some of the debate. Not once I have smeared and trashed any aboriginal leader.I just find it unseemly, dare I say it Harperish even. If you read the article you will see the comments of an anti-pipileine aboriginal leader. He refuses to say any disparaging comment about any aboriginal leaders on the other side. Maybe that could be an important lesson.

I agree -- and a number have made it clear that they are being railroaded. If they do not agree they get to have no say in it and they know it is going ahead anyway.

I think you have misinterpreted the article. This is about chiefs in favour of the pipelines but feel they can't speak up. This comes from the national chief no less.

I did not get this from the article. -- these were interviews on the CBC where they said they felt that they had no choice but to agree or be excluded from the process.


Okay so we have chiefs and n both sides of this issue feeling that they can't speak up.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..pipelines have never been a choice except for the corporations and banks. even the governments are under huge pressure to produce.

..divide and conquer is an old game that has been used throughout the campaigns for pipelines both by the provincial and federal governments. the pipeline and lng threads are peppered here and there with reports from bc of the government created band councils being used to counter the wishes of the majority.

..flashing buckets of money around is also a well known tactic used to create enormous pressure within nations that have been under unbearable poverty. incredible poverty brought about by those very same governments ever since canada came into existence. extraction is a false promise and will never lift those folks out of poverty. one has only to look at the deals being struck to understand this. it's not a secret who will benefit the most, who will pay the price and who will pay the cleanup bill.

..and look at the contortions trudeau is going through to render undrip powerless even as he pays lip service otherwise. the liberals know undrip threatens a certain death to the very tarsands themselves let alone pipelines. they know very well it would would end the massive, unfettered and insatiable corporate gorging of all resources. and then there's the water issue.

..this is why the treaty alliance is so important. a place where indigenous and settler folk can come together to both defend against the onslaughts and force a change in direction and an end to colonialism.

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:

 

Okay so we have chiefs and n both sides of this issue feeling that they can't speak up.

Yes, That is what I am saying.

The consultation is absuvive intentionally or not.

Their situations leave many of them, on both sides, feeling they do not have a real choice.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..this piece raises important issues and i highlight this one to show one of the deals i speak of in #71.

Kinder Morgan Approval Insults Democracy, Science and Economic Logic

quote:

Bitumen’s price problem

Next comes the mythical economic windfall of getting bitumen to tidewater ports. According to the government and Alberta officials, the price of bitumen will somehow shine like gold once it hits an ocean terminal.

But David Hughes, one of the country’s top energy analysts, says that’s nonsense and so, too, does the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Bitumen sells for less (anywhere between $10 and $15) than conventional oil because it is an inferior heavy product that requires more processing and refining, as well as extensive dilution with imported condensate for transport. Bitumen’s appalling quality ensures its low price will never disappear.

“The price differential is a fact of life given the location of the resource and its inferior quality, and will occur if the oil is sold to U.S., European or Asian refineries,” explained Hughes.

“There is absolutely no reason for the Alberta and Canadian governments to assume a price premium for [Western Canadian Select] will result from ‘tidewater’ access. If anything, ‘tidewater’ access will command a further discount from what can be obtained using existing pipelines and markets.” But more pipelines, argued Trudeau, will allow Canada “to make progress, to leave a cleaner more prosperous country to our kids than the one we inherited from our parents.”

How can indebted Alberta ever do that when pipelines drain the province of its wealth and opportunity, due to its appalling low bitumen royalties?

Cenovus, for example, paid only $3 million in royalties on sales worth $1.2 billion in the first six months of 2016. That's a quarter of a per cent.

Canadian Natural paid $6 million on $1.198 billion of bitumen sales for the first half of 2016. That’s 0.5 per cent for Albertans.

NorthReport

And what is Canada and in particular the BC NDP doing again about good paying jobs?

Donald Trump, in Louisiana, Says He Will End Energy Regulations

BATON ROUGE, La. — President-elect Donald J. Trump promised on Friday that his administration would strip away “job-killing restrictions” on energy production and encourage the construction of refineries in the United States, as he campaigned for Republican candidates in a state heavily dependent on the oil and gas industry.

“We will cancel the job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy,” Mr. Trump said in an airplane hangar in Baton Rouge, the day before Louisiana voters go to the polls to vote for Senate and House candidates. “We haven’t had refineries built in decades, right? We’re going to have refineries built again.”

His comments came a day after he had announced his selection of ScottPruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Pruitt is a staunch ally of the energy industry who has teamed up with companies to undercut the Obama administration’s climate regulations.

Mr. Trump pledged to enact a “massive” tax cut for the middle class, roll back Obama-era regulations, pass a $1 trillion infrastructure program and build a wall on the southern border to prioritize American people and jobs.

“We’re going to rebuild our country with American hands by American workers,” Mr. Trump said, adding that his administration would be guided by “two simple rules: Buy American, and hire American.”

“Our country is being drained — drained of jobs,” Mr. Trump said.

 


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/politics/donald-trump-in-louisiana-...

Stockholm

so what's your point? are you saying the NDP should emulate Trump and abolish all energy and environmental regulations and declare climate change to be a Chinese hoax???

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Global events around oil (and gas?) production are significant with recent OPEC announcement of a substantial cut in production. Non-OPEC countries have also agreed to cut production. The Saudis and the Russians are , I think, looking at the largest cuts. This deal is really thanks to the enormous efforts of the Russian President, V V Putin. Even Western business reporting are noting this fact.

Interestingly, but hardly surprising, neither the barbarians in Washington nor their obedient chihuahua in Ottawa took part in this process. I guess the rest of the world will cut production... and El Norte will do what the hell they like.

But perhaps I have this wrong? To be clear, cutting production is - to a great degree - about stabilizing the price of a barrel of oil. And higher prices may/will make the economies of fracking, tar sands, and other more expensive methods practical.

I don't profess to be any sort of expert on oil and gas, either here in Canada or generally, but perhaps some others might want to weigh in on the effect, if any, of these global deliberations.

Some links to follow.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The US is definitely *NOT* part of the OPEC + Russia production cuts. While OPEC and Russia decrease production, North America will increase. To keep track of American oil rigs, the site to watch is at Baker Hughes who monitor the global industry and produce results every Friday.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79687&p=irol-rigcountsoverview

 

NorthReport

You would think listening to the comments here that the alternative to the Liberals is the NDP but not so, as I have saying for some time now

It's over for the NDP and that's the Canadian people saying that

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/10/support-for-federal-liber...

swallow swallow's picture

Yes! Any links on the OPEC-Russia deal? 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

swallow wrote:

Yes! Any links on the OPEC-Russia deal? 

 

See https://www.rt.com/search?q=OPEC

... for RT's view.

US business press has plenty.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

montrealer58 wrote:
The US is definitely *NOT* part of the OPEC + Russia production cuts. While OPEC and Russia decrease production, North America will increase. To keep track of American oil rigs, the site to watch is at Baker Hughes who monitor the global industry and produce results every Friday.

So should the left support cuts in global production and be pointing out the failure of the North American regimes to join this planetary initiative (and their expected sabotage of the effort) ?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

It is not a question of the "North American Regimes". It is a question of the almighty dollar. Because of this, I can't say whether low or high prices would be 'left', 'right', or 'dollar'.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I don't get your point. The US and Canada, you say, will ignore the production cuts of the rest of the world, feast on the better prices by selling more when the rest of the planet is (mostly) selling less, and thumb their noses at the world, and you say this is due to "the almighty dollar" ?

How about the lack of political will?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The oil price goes up and down for whatever reason. As they say in the industry, the cure for high oil prices is high oil prices. There is no political will whatsoever which determines oil production in North America. Rigs are activated and deactivated depending on the profit per barrel they can make. There is currently a fracking bonanza in Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. They are very profitable at the current rate. 

If the Russians and OPEC want to limit production because they think it will mean a higher price per barrel for what they do produce, there is nothing stopping them. Yet when the increased North American production comes on line, that will result in a glut which will drive the price down. This will destablize the OPEC-Russia alliance, probably causing them to increase production as well to get more dollars in. 

An American oil executive said that US oil production could literally double. 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:
You would think listening to the comments here that the alternative to the Liberals is the NDP but not so, as I have saying for some time now It's over for the NDP and that's the Canadian people saying that
">https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/12/10/support-for-federal-liber...

 

The At Issue panel discusses this. Interestingly the comment is that this is nt helping the NDP in the polls but it will eventually.

The NDP is low but not dead. There are opportunities as the Liberals show their true colours.

Rev Pesky

montrealer58 wrote:

The oil price goes up and down for whatever reason. As they say in the industry, the cure for high oil prices is high oil prices. There is no political will whatsoever which determines oil production in North America. Rigs are activated and deactivated depending on the profit per barrel they can make. There is currently a fracking bonanza in Texas, Oklahoma, and North Dakota. They are very profitable at the current rate. 

If the Russians and OPEC want to limit production because they think it will mean a higher price per barrel for what they do produce, there is nothing stopping them. Yet when the increased North American production comes on line, that will result in a glut which will drive the price down. This will destablize the OPEC-Russia alliance, probably causing them to increase production as well to get more dollars in. 

An American oil executive said that US oil production could literally double.

You have to be careful about listening to oil company executives. They have a deep interest in selling shares, so they pump almost as much hot air as they do oil. Not all analysts are quite as optimistic:

The shale oil revolution is in danger

Quote:
Oil producers and Wall Street analysts claim the setback in the fracking industry brought on by the collapse in oil prices will be brief and minor. Don’t believe them.

...The basic economics of fracking—what it costs to drill versus what oil now sells for—spells big trouble for the shale boom. At best, today’s producers may be able to hold production close to current levels. What’s gravely endangered is the advertised bonanza that virtually everyone deemed inevitable just a few short months ago.

...Unlike conventional projects, shale wells enjoy an extremely short life. In the Bakken region straddling Montana and North Dakota, a well that starts out pumping 1,000 barrels a day will decline to just 280 barrels by the start of year two, a shrinkage of 72%. By the beginning of year three, more than half the reserves of that well will be depleted, and annual production will fall to a trickle.

...To keep the boom going, the shale gang must keep doing what they’ve been doing to thrive; they need to drill many, many new wells.

...It’s easy to get financing when your costs are $65 and you’re selling at $100. But when the price is $50, where will the producers find the funds to keep sinking those new wells? It will take a lot of new drilling just to keep production where it is now. A steady but no-growth shale industry is not what America has been counting on. The spread of rigs and jobs that seemed such a certainty, and such a staple of our recovery, may be a fading vision.

Now, they may be right or they may be wrong, but there is one thing that's sure, the depletion rate for fracked wells is many times faster than that of conventional wells. It may not cost that much more to get the oil out of the ground, but the constant drilling required to maintain production does cost. One of the things that has sustained the industry is simply the rock bottom interest rate. With long-term returns going into negative numbers, it hasn't been that hard for the drillers to find money. If the rate climbs, investors may start looking elsewhere to park their money. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Opinion: Alberta's clean and dirty energy plans, side by side

Alberta recently announced plans to nearly triple the amount of climate-safe energy the province produces by 2030. That's a big jump. But over those same years, Alberta plans to increase the production of climate-damaging energy by fifty times more than that.

Here's a chart that lets you compare Alberta's clean and dirty energy plans. The black bars show current energy production in both renewables and bitumen oil (a.k.a. oilsands). Expansion plans for renewables are shown in green and bitumen in orange.

Alberta energy production: All values in Terawatt hours (TWh) per year. Black = current production. Orange & Green = planned additions. Chart by Barry Saxifrage at VisualCarbon.org and NationalObserver.com.

As the chart shows, Alberta plans to increase dirty energy production (bitumen) by 800 terawatt hours per year (TWh). That's the fat orange bar.

Over the same fifteen years, Alberta plans to increase clean energy production (renewables) by 14 TWh/year. That's the very thin green bar. At that rate, it would take Alberta more than 850 years to increase clean energy production to match the dirty increase.

To enable Alberta's 50-to-1 dirty energy expansion, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently approved two pipelines despite bitter opposition from many in their path. In his announcement he praised Alberta for helping lead the "transition to a clean energy economy" and a cleaner future for our kids.

The numbers above, however, show that Alberta is prioritizing a dirty energy economy...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i don't always agree with tieleman's take on things but he has these interesting poll results in this piece.

Will Kinder Morgan Surprise BC Liberals or NDP in May Election?

quote:

A September Mainstreet Research poll gave some hope to the New Democrats, showing them ahead of the BC Liberals by five points among decided and leaning voters, 38 per cent to 33 per cent

And details on how each party’s voters feel about Kinder Morgan that was made exclusively available to me on request earlier this year shows why BC NDP leader John Horgan likely decided to go all-in on opposition to the project, just as Dix did, with hopes for much better results.

The Mainstreet Research poll of 2,207 British Columbians in September found 43 per cent opposed to the Kinder Morgan pipeline project and 42 per cent in favour, with 15 per cent not sure.

But when you look more closely, the picture changes.

Only 13 per cent of NDP voters strongly approve of the pipeline expansion plan, while another 16 per cent somewhat approve, for 29 per cent support.

But 47 per cent of NDP voters say they strongly disapprove of the project, with 13 per cent somewhat disapproving, for a significant total of 60 per cent against Kinder Morgan. Twelve per cent weren’t sure.

With those numbers, it would be foolhardy to piss in the wind and strongly support the pipeline. On the other hand, 29 per cent of NDP voters support the Kinder Morgan project, so a definitive position against it risks their backing.

The BC Liberals also face possible trouble with Kinder Morgan, but their supporters split almost in way almost opposite to NDP backers.

Kinder Morgan is strongly approved of by 48 per cent of BC Liberal voters, with 18 per cent more somewhat approving — a total of 66 per cent.

Nine per cent of Liberal backers strongly disapprove of the pipeline plan and another 14 per cent somewhat disapprove, for 23 per cent not in favour. Ten per cent weren’t sure.

As one might expect, 91 per cent of Green Party voters strongly or somewhat disapprove of the pipeline project while 58 per cent of BC Conservative Party supporters are strongly or somewhat in favour, while another 24 per cent are not sure.

That leaves the NDP likely hoping to pick up Green voters opposed to Kinder Morgan by arguing only the New Democrats can form government and stop the pipeline.

quizzical

yup just keep shooting at Notley and insure the WR  or Kenney's new political creation gets power and the whinging will really begin about evironmental destruction and people will remember Rachel fondly instead of shooting at her as an ally.

does no one understand incrementalism towards social change after 44 years of corporate control? ffs

these threads just piss me off after another day of "lock her up" chanting by the Rebel media crowd.

 

 

Stockholm

None of this matters. Whether Kinder Morgan gets expanded or not is 100% a federal gov ernment decisions. there is nothing the BC governme nt can do to stop it even if it wanted to. I hate to be a cynic, but I suspect that a private conversation between Rachel Notley and John Horgan likely consisted of Horgan saying "look you know as well as i do that its political impossible for the BC NDP to take any position other than total opposition to expanding Kinder Morgan and the resulting septupling of tanker traffic in and out of the port of Vancouver. During the election campaign we will milk it for all its worth. But if we win the election, you and i both know that Kinder Morgan is a done deal. i will scream and yell and blame Trudeau...and then the pipeline will get built and it will be a 'noble defeat'. The NDP/Green types will be happy because I expressed their point of view - and then the pipeline will get built anyways so everyone in Alberta will be happy."

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Stockholm wrote:

None of this matters. Whether Kinder Morgan gets expanded or not is 100% a federal gov ernment decisions. there is nothing the BC governme nt can do to stop it even if it wanted to. I hate to be a cynic, but I suspect that a private conversation between Rachel Notley and John Horgan likely consisted of Horgan saying "look you know as well as i do that its political impossible for the BC NDP to take any position other than total opposition to expanding Kinder Morgan and the resulting septupling of tanker traffic in and out of the port of Vancouver. During the election campaign we will milk it for all its worth. But if we win the election, you and i both know that Kinder Morgan is a done deal. i will scream and yell and blame Trudeau...and then the pipeline will get built and it will be a 'noble defeat'. The NDP/Green types will be happy because I expressed their point of view - and then the pipeline will get built anyways so everyone in Alberta will be happy."

..ahh but it does matter and just because the feds said yes to kinder morgan it is not a done deal and here's why. at the center of these decisions is the duty to consult.

Northern Gateway pipeline approval overturned

Legal Win: First Nation Stops Nexen Energy From Sucking Lake Dry for Fracking

..also the chippewa of the thames first nations’ just had a supreme court hearing that challenged the notion that the crown can delegate the consultation process to the neb. the court heard this jointly with the clyde river inuit challenge that was similar in nature.

..then there's the doig river, prophet river, west moberly and mcLeod lake bands site c court challenge that was also recently heard.

..which brings us to the tsleil-waututh challenge which covers the van/bby area. this has yet to be heard. this ruling is expected to follow the northern gateway/nexon energy decisions. so it is doubtful, imo, that the piepline will be expanded.

quizzical

i'm suffering from a cognative dissonance over "duty to consult" being used.

slam Rachel for following what the AB electorate wants in her "duty to consult" because it doesn't mesh with "personal opinions".

but yell for it everywhere else.

kropotkin1951

quizzical wrote:

i'm suffering from a cognative dissonance over "duty to consult" being used.

slam Rachel for following what the AB electorate wants in her "duty to consult" because it doesn't mesh with "personal opinions".

but yell for it everywhere else.

Rachel is indeed speaking for the majority of Albertans when she is promoting pipelines. However if she believes in the will of the people so strongly then she should accept the fact that the majority of the people on the West Coast do not want tanker ports. 

From a First Nations persepctive the legal issue that is the elephant in the room is does the duty to consult ever lead to the right to reject and if so in what circumstances.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:
From a First Nations persepctive the legal issue that is the elephant in the room is does the duty to consult ever lead to the right to reject and if so in what circumstances.

The socialist principle, since Lenin, of the Right of Nations to Self-Determination would, if used as a guide here, be a kind of "absolute". Of course, Canadian law isn't principled Leninism. hah. But that's the bar, I think.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..i don't believe for a second that the majority of people in alberta want the tarsands. it's all that is being offered up by all the major parties there. even now the idea of prosperity via pipelines is being driven into peoples minds. it's a big fucking lie..just as it was in the past.

Stockholm

Correction. KM is not a totally done deal since as mentioned above there is a remote chance that a court challenge from First nations could kill it...but that could happen no matter who wins the May 2017 BC election. My point is that as far as KM is concerned, it really doesnt matter whether the NDP or the BC Liberals win in may 2017.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..but it does stockholm. and it's more than just a remote chance. i would say it's more than a 50% chance that the courts will come down on the side of the tsleil-waututh. and this is where the difference between the libs vs ndp comes into play. the northern gateway ruling said that the province did not have the authority to pass off it's responsibilies to consult to the feds who in turn passed it to the neb for the most part. so now the prov has to set up it's own consultation and assesment. 

..this means if your wrong in your synicism the ndp can bring forth a more legitimate process vs the two faced prov libs.

 

quizzical

kropotkin1951 wrote:
quizzical wrote:
i'm suffering from a cognative dissonance over "duty to consult" being used.

slam Rachel for following what the AB electorate wants in her "duty to consult" because it doesn't mesh with "personal opinions".

but yell for it everywhere else.

Rachel is indeed speaking for the majority of Albertans when she is promoting pipelines. However if she believes in the will of the people so strongly then she should accept the fact that the majority of the people on the West Coast do not want tanker ports. 

From a First Nations persepctive the legal issue that is the elephant in the room is does the duty to consult ever lead to the right to reject and if so in what circumstances.

not true. last poll taken was something like 59% of BCers were good to go for the TM pipeline it wasn't until you get to the coast where % goes up.

i agree "does it ever" and what happens when some impacted are all for it while others not so much???

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

September 20, 2016 (Ottawa, ON) – A new Mainstreet/Postmedia poll

quote:

OPINIONS DEADLOCKED ON KINDER MORGAN

“When we asked about approval of the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion we found opinion deadlocked with 43% opposed and 42% in favour”, continued Maggi. “Despite these numbers only 27% of British Columbians believe the pipeline won’t be built while 39% believe it will be built regardless and another 34% aren’t sure.

”Despite their own personal opposition it does look like some British Columbians have begun to accept the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion may be approved regardless. These numbers are very similar to the ones we have found in British Columbia in previous polling.“

“Opposition to Kinder Morgan was heavily split among gender with 46% of Women disapproving (36% approval) and 49% of men approving (40% disapproval).”

SLIGHTLY MORE OPPOSED TO NORTHERN GATEWAY

“Scores for the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline were slightly more negative than those for Kinder Morgan. 46% oppose the Northern Gateway project with 40% in favour, a 6 point gap. Fewer also believe it will be built regardless of their own personal support for the project (35%) while roughly the same amount (27%) don’t believe the project will be completed. Of note, while 28% strongly disapprove of Kinder Morgan, 32% strongly disapprove of Northern Gateway. Opposition is more pronounced.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the above numbers change when the question relates to tankers.

Kinder Morgan Could Inflict Political Damage on Trudeau Liberals in BC

November 23rd, 2016

A new poll by Insights West shows strong opposition to increased oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s south coast, including those voters who supported Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party in the 2015 federal election.

The province-wide online survey of a representative provincial sample, commissioned by Dogwood Initiative, found British Columbians remain opposed to oil tanker expansion by a factor of two to one. Almost two thirds of respondents who voted Liberal in 2015 (64%) agree, while just 27% support more oil tankers.

“Many British Columbians believe the approval of the Kinder Morgan project would go against the current prime minister’s campaign pledges on climate change and relations with First Nations,” said Mario Canseco, Vice President of Public Affairs at Insights West. “This includes a majority of those who chose to support the Liberal Party on last year’s federal ballot.”

Two-in-five residents in Metro Vancouver (40%), where the majority of Liberal seats in B.C. are located, said they would be less likely to vote Liberal next election if the federal government approves Kinder Morgan’s pipeline and tanker project. Three-in-ten Liberal voters (31%) say they would be less likely to support Trudeau’s party if the project goes ahead.

Pages