Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/the-closing-of-the-cana...

The early polls show Mr. Harper trailing, but he’s beaten bad polls before. He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions.

The Harper years have not been terrible?

I guess you can be ignorant being an American trying to explain Canadian politics.

terrytowel wrote:

Adam Vaughan writes OP-ED slamming NDP for its Scarborough Subway Flip-Flop

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/14/adam-vaughan-on-toronto-transit-plans

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”
― Ralph Waldo Emerson

terrytowel wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Please walk me through the problem again? A politician runs as an Independent in a municipal election and supports light transit and is defeated. The federal NDP supports funding a percentage of projects (usually a third) forwarded to them by the elected councils of municipalities.

At least show me where during the civic election that Olivia proposed that the federal government should impose its views on the development of transit in Toronto or other municipalities across the country.

 

 

From the Toronto Sun

Under her plan, if elected Olivia Chow would scrap the Scarborough subway extension and its 30-year, 1.6% tax hike and then work to secure funding from other levels of government to help fund the downtown relief line and/or the TTC’s state of good repair costs. Once that agreement is inked, Chow would then ask council to approve a dedicated tax hike (around the same amount as the Scarborough subway tax increase) to raise around $1 billion - the city’s share of the funding.

The former NDP MP and ex-city councillor would also lobby the provincial government to resume funding around 50% of the TTC’s operating costs - a practice the province ended back in 1998.

“We can’t have a national conversation led by a mayor who either doesn’t know the truth about transit, or won’t tell it,” says Chow

“Unlike John Tory I will be guided by the experts not a failed mayor.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/04/29/olivia-chow-to-unveil-transit-fundi...

You missed the point, when she advocated for a specific subway proposal she was trying to be elected Mayor not running to be part of the federal NDP .

What galls me about this stupid story is the idea that any federal party should have a policy that says they will override municipalities' priorities on local issues and refuse to fund anything except the projects an Independent candidate previously supported in a losing civic elections bid.

Now there's a way to piss off every municipal council in the country.

adma wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

No one thought Outremont was winnable either.  Or Alberta.  So, maybe Eglinton-Lawrence.

Actually, pre-Mulcair, the NDP was already treating Outremont as their most 'targetable" QC seat.  So the foundation was already there for Mulcair.

"targetable" and "winnable" are two different concepts.  Placing a high profile person in a targetable seat means you expect a decent showing.  Placing them in a winnable seat means you actually feel you can win.  The fact that they did win Outremont means even targetable, never mind winnable, seats are possible.  And also 'no hope in hell', which many of the Quebec seats and many of the Alberta seats, were designated as.  Because in spite of this designation, many of these seats were won by the NDP.  So, Eglinton-Lawrence is all of the above:  targetable, winnable, and no hope in hell.  Like Quebec and Alberta, Eglinton-Lawrence shall be the NDP's come October 19.  Mark my words.

Why does the LPC and its shills on this board think Canadians are so stupid that they can't understand the NDP wage proposal and feel they have to explain it to Canaidans? More LPC and their shill supporter arrogance, that's why.

mark_alfred wrote:

"targetable" and "winnable" are two different concepts.  Placing a high profile person in a targetable seat means you expect a decent showing.  Placing them in a winnable seat means you actually feel you can win.  The fact that they did win Outremont means even targetable, never mind winnable, seats are possible.  And also 'no hope in hell', which many of the Quebec seats and many of the Alberta seats, were designated as.  Because in spite of this designation, many of these seats were won by the NDP.  So, Eglinton-Lawrence is all of the above:  targetable, winnable, and no hope in hell.  Like Quebec and Alberta, Eglinton-Lawrence shall be the NDP's come October 19.  Mark my words.

Actually, I'd deem Outremont more a "University-Rosedale" kind of seat, i.e. by Montreal standards, not quite in NHIH territory.  (And one thing in particular that made Outremont targetable: it was neither monolithically federalist or monolithically nationalist--that is, the NDP had wiggle room to come up the middle.  Coupled with the fact that the polyglotness made it the most "hip urban Torontonian" of Montreal seats, i.e. strangely compatible with a Layton/Chow vision.)

Northern-54 wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BtNN164Pnc&feature=youtu.be

 

This is an NDP internet ad that I think is pretty effective in the media chosen.

I am biased against the NDP, having said that I think it's terrible. It's patronizing. Why would I want children who don't understand what they are reading to read aloud to me? I don't think it's appropriate to use kids this way.

Its cute and funny, tongue in cheek, get a sense of humour Pondering.

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:

Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

i'm working on the premise they're extracting no matter what.

if they're extracting it anyway and shipping somewhere else to be refined it might as well be done here. it would be harm reduction imv.

of course the best harm reduction would be to leave it there and start rebuilding the destoyed lands.

quizzical wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:

Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

i'm working on the premise they're extracting no matter what.

if they're extracting it anyway and shipping somewhere else to be refined it might as well be done here. it would be harm reduction imv.

of course the best harm reduction would be to leave it there and start rebuilding the destoyed lands.

Why work on that premise? If it is true we are doomed. What makes you think the oil sands will still be developed if there are no new pipelines.

Tom Mulcair expected to speak live at 11AM today (Sunday 16 August 2015):  link

 Good, glad to hear it.

it pleased the religious base.

jerrym wrote:

quizzical wrote:

why is the price too low to justify it?

refining  oil and selling it to Canadians instead of our importing it is way more environmentally friendly and money generating.

In the very short run it might work. However, not only environmentally, but economically this is disastrous. 

Linda McQuaig was right -environmentally we will have to leave a lot of the oil sands in the ground to avoid a global disaster. I won't restate the reasons (unless you indicate you want that) as they have been stated many times by many people. 

Of course we should totally ignore the ravings of a radical, envrionmental, socialist revolutionaries like the Saudi Arabian Minister of Oil and natureal Resources and Linda McQuaig.  

jerry, if you kept reading you would've noted i'm not in favour of having the tar sands or the pipelines. i'm just stating the conclusions i've drawn from existing in the oil patch for the last 2 years and living in the heartland of the Transmountain pipeline.

i believe they're going to continue to extract bitumen for the next few years. and because i believe they're going to do  it even against public disapproval there might as well be a refinery doing it here. for me it is making the best out of bad circumstance. i believe in taking harm reduction approaches if nothing else can be done in the now to stop it.

quizzical wrote:

why is the price too low to justify it?

refining  oil and selling it to Canadians instead of our importing it is way more environmentally friendly and money generating.

In the very short run it might work. However, not only environmentally, but economically this is disastrous. 

Linda McQuaig was right -environmentally we will have to leave a lot of the oil sands in the ground to avoid a global disaster. I won't restate the reasons (unless you indicate you want that) as they have been stated many times by many people. 

Nonetheless, many people still do not realize that this is not sustainable economically, as the following two articles testify. 

Quote:

Fossil Fuels Just Lost the Race Against Renewables

This is the beginning of the end.

The race for renewable energy has passed a turning point. The world is now adding more capacity for renewable power each year than coal, natural gas, and oil combined. And there's no going back. 

The shift occurred in 2013, when the world added 143 gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity, compared with 141 gigawatts in new plants that burn fossil fuels, according to an analysis presented Tuesday at the Bloomberg New Energy Finance annual summit in New York. The shift will continue to accelerate, and by 2030 more than four times as much renewable capacity will be added. 

The Beginning of the End

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Power generation capacity additions (GW) Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Even Saudi Arabia sees the economic handwriting on the wall, as noted by Ali bin Ibrahim Al-Naimi, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources.

Quote:

Ali Al-Naimi’s statement is striking as Saudi Arabia’s wealth and influence is entirely founded on its huge oil wealth and the nation has been one of the strongest voices against climate change action at UN summits.

“In Saudi Arabia, we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we’re not going to need fossil fuels,” said Naimi at a business and climate conference in Paris on Thursday. “I don’t know when - 2040, 2050 or thereafter. So we have embarked on a program to develop solar energy,” he said in comments reported by the Guardian, Bloomberg and the Financial Times. “Hopefully, one of these days, instead of exporting fossil fuels, we will be exporting gigawatts of electric power.”

Naimi also said he did not think that continuing low crude oil prices would make solar power uneconomic: “I believe solar will be even more economic than fossil fuels.”

Paris is the venue for a crunch UN climate change summit in December and Thursday’s conference was part of the French government’s preparations. The Saudi signal provides a ray of sunlight for those hoping for a strong deal to tackle global warming.

“Saudi Arabia is sending a strong signal to all oil producers and companies they must plan for an energy transition,” said Mark Fulton, former head of climate research at Deutsche Bank and advisor to the Carbon Tracker Initiative (CTI).

“If Saudi Arabia is starting to hedge its bets by developing solar capacity, this could change the fundamentals of the oil market,” said James Leaton, CTI head of research.

Of course we should totally ignore the ravings of radical, envrionmental, socialist revolutionaries like the Saudi Arabian Minister of Oil and Natural Resources and Linda McQuaig.  

Pondering wrote:

And Mulcair promoting Energy East for years was in service of the environment? They will do whatever they want no matter the government if it is financially lucrative and that includes the NDP who is supporting the development of the oil sands.

You seem so willing to criticize the NDP, which I don't agree with on this particular policy, but avoid at all times criticizing your fav, Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals, despite comments like this.

Quote:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said McQuaig's remarks, and Harper's reaction, show that both the NDP and the Conservatives hold "extreme positions" on the economy and the environment.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mcquaig-oilsands-re...

Trudeau's comment basically states he will follow a fossil fuel's policy that involves development of the oil sands and other carbon dioxide emitting projects to a level greater than the NDP, but less than the Cons (kind of vague, but Trudeau often is). So if think the NDP is not going far enough with regard to fossil fuel development and other policies, why do you continually endorse Trudeau's and the Liberals' more tepid approach?

Pondering wrote:

jerrym wrote:

Trudeau's comment basically states he will follow a fossil fuel's policy that involves development of the oil sands and other carbon dioxide emitting projects to a level greater than the NDP, but less than the Cons (kind of vague, but Trudeau often is). So if think the NDP is not going far enough with regard to fossil fuel development and other policies, why do you continually endorse Trudeau's and the Liberals' more tepid approach?

I don't endorse either party on the oil pipeline issue. I have said for ages that protesters are blocking the pipelines. If we leave it up to the politicians they will all go through. The NDP is not superior on the environmental file. Mulcair denounced Keystone based on jobs not the environment. Neither party "wins" on this file. Environmental protection is not a reason to vote for the NDP.

However, there never seems to be a reason to not vote Liberal for you.

Tweet from Pundit's Guide retweeted by Jame Valcke:

Pundits' Guide ‏@punditsguide 51m51 minutes agoWith Melissa Wastasecoot in Brandon-Souris, #NDP has nominated 16 indigenous candidates - more than any other party now, or ever! #elxn42 

This makes me feel very proud. The NDP is putting forward a head-and-shoulders superior group of candidates then either of the two other tired, boring, old-line-parities. While there are certainly areas of policy where the NDP should be doiing much better, this is a clear illustation of the NDP's committment to inclusivity.

I read a tweet by Kevin Russel regarding a tweet accusing Tom Mulcar of edploiting children in an ad. Does anyone know much about it. https://twitter.com/calgarykiaguy/status/633010007227785216  It seems to me the Libs are clearly determined to try and smear the NDP as much as they can, and as we have seen on this board since the election call. I maintian for the Libs it ISNT about getting power, its about surpassing the NDP as number 2. The Libs don't care about anything but power. And as for all of Trudeau's promsies, which no doubt some on here will use if they reply to my tweet, my answer is, yeah, yeah, run left, govern right. Oh my they'll say, the cupboard is bare.

.

Pondering wrote:

The NDP is not superior on the environmental file.

It is, actually. But to see that, you have to pay attention to something you habitually ignore, which is actually the most important thing of all (which is why you ignore it): Namely, their record.

Mulcair has a strong reputation as a strict enforcer of regulations. His relentless pursuit of polluters who were slipping through the many wide cracks in the system is well known in Quebec. The Liberal party is widely known for the exact opposite. Passing regulations that it fails to enforce or even pay attention to. And of course, Justin has no record on anything, as always.

So judging by records and actual experience (and it's clear why a Liberal shill like yourself would try to avoid doing so) we can see that far from being on even footing, the current NDP would be a remedy to the decades of Liberal and Conservative neglect. Obviously they are going to resurrect the protections that Harper has killed. Hopefull they'll go much farther and improve on what was there before. But even if they didn't, they would certainly enforce all the environmental legislation that the Liberals spent decades bragging about but in practice ignored completely. That would still be a huge improvement.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/artificial-banal-and-contriv...

Unionist wrote:

Unionist wrote:

quizzical wrote:

thanks....paraphrased what i would've responded but on it.

I see. What about GHG emissions? Does that factor into "environmentally friendly"? Or just spills?

So quizzical, just to be very specific, I'm talking about the extraction process - which is what Linda McQuaig was talking about when she warned about the impact on climate change (before she was required to "clarify" her comments). Transporting the stuff is an additional danger of course, whether by water, rail, or pipeline.

Pembina Institute wrote:

Average greenhouse gas emissions for oilsands extraction and upgrading are estimated to be 3.2 to 4.5 times as intensive per barrel as for conventional crude oil produced in Canada or the United States.

I don't expect "unionists" to be "scientists" or even good "mathematicians", but if you had actually analyzed the data you were presented with you might have figured out that because consumption accounts for the greatest part of GHG emissions, 3.2 to 4.5 times the amount of GHG emissions caused in production of Tar Sands fuel when compared to regular crude pumped in the US or Canada does not equate with a total "well to wheel" rate of GHG emissions 3.2 to 4.5 time higher for Tar Sands based fuel.

Scary numbers aside, what it really means in "well to wheel" terms is an 8% to 32% increase in total GHG emissions. This factor is affected substantively by where the sweet crude we are talking about refining comes from and how it is transported. Since we are talking about supplying the Eastern Canadian market, we are not talking regular crude pumped in Canada and shipped overland but imported crude, transported by tanker over long distances, something that substantively reduces GHG "efficiency".

The comparison is between refined Tar Sands fuel transported over pipelines that emit next to no extra GHG, and "sweet crude" imported and refined in Labrador using cabon intensive modes of transportation.

Yes, Tar Sands extraction for fuel is less efficient than regular crude, but far more factors than simple "production" must be accounted for by the time we calculate the total GHG emission at "the wheel".

Consumption is the main factor in GHG emissions, and that is what needs to be reduced.

More Mark Adler:

http://www.cjnews.com/canada/mark-adler-really-first-mp-born-holocaust-s...

Adler’s claim, contained in the second sentence of his online biography – originally posted on his official website and repeated on his campaign site – is that he is “the first child of a Holocaust survivor to ever be elected as an MP.”

But the distinction apparently belongs to Raymonde Folco, who served as a Montreal-area Liberal MP from 1997 to 2011.

...

In an email to The CJN, Folco said she found it “disgusting” for Adler “to use the Holocaust in this way, for personal ends.” She later told The CJN that as an MP, she never publicized her status as a child of Holocaust survivors, while Adler is “profiting” from it.

“Whether he is the first or 15th, I should think it is your record that matters: what you’ve done and what you intend to do for Canadians, when elected.”