Calgary Centre Federal By-election - Nov 26 (UPDATE - Crockatt wins for CPC)

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

One man's poison is another man's cure.

Yeah, and thanks to our screwed up electoral system, 40% of the country gets to poison the other 60% with their "cure".

I believe this may be what Trudeau was talking about.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I think it could make a difference with people who don't follow politics religiously... the fence sitters.

You mean people who don't vote in by-elections?

Sounds like a winning strategy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Slava

Lets just enjoy the hopeful demise of the CPC on Monday in Calgary Centre.

Hopefully--the smart money is on Crockatt in my view, but at least they're sweating!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Rerun

One man's poison is another man's cure.

Nice glib response. SebC offered an argument, you farted.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Nice glib response. SebC offered an argument, you farted.

In Rerun's defense, he offered an argument too (and your tone here is worse than his)... it's a matter of your values. Of course a Conservative would have no problem with the agenda a certain group of Albertans is imposing... but for someone with Liberal or progressive values, there's a ton of problems with it.

I believe my counter-argument to that argument was pretty good.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by c.t.ner

I'm still not sure that McGuinty or Trudeau's comments will really shift things in this race. If the softer Red Tories were already abandoning Crockatt for Harvey or Turner, I don't think these comments are really going to change anything. It's good fodder for the hyper partisans, but I doubt this is a real game changer.

Fully agree. McGuinty's comments were anti-oil sands, but if you were considering Turner or Locke than you probably don't care enough about that for it to effect your vote. If you're #1 issue is continued oil sands expansion then you wouldn't dabble in voting Green, NDP, or Liberal. It's pretty clear where each of those parties stands vis-a-vis the oil industry. It's really just different shades of how hard to hit the industry relative to the current operating environment.

NDP -Will not allow Northern Gateway, Trans-mountain expansion, and has made openly hostile remarks with regards to Keystone XL claiming it better to 'keep refining and upgrading jobs in Canada'

Greens - It's the green party, regardless of how smooth Chris Turner talks about the issue, it's not like anything he advocates is going to improve things from an oil and gas industry perspective. At best in his world the oil sands are tolerated to the extent that their economic benefits are collected and diverted into subsidizing green jobs.

Liberals - Their 2011 election platform specifically mentioned 'banning tanker traffic off the west coast.' Taken literally that means that Northern Gateway and the Trans-Mountain expansion are up in flames, and it also puts the continuing existance of Trans-Mountain and the tanker traffic it creates out of Burnaby at risk. That said I would hardly imagine that the Liberals would shut down Kinder-Morgan's existing Trans-Mountain pipeline (They would get sued for billions). Thinking about that, it makes me wonder if the Liberals even knew there already was tanker traffic off the west-coast. If not it speaks volumes about their regard for one of Canada's most important industries.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by SebC

In Rerun's defense, he offered an argument too (and your tone here is worse than his)... it's a matter of your values. Of course a Conservative would have no problem with the agenda a certain group of Albertans is imposing... but for someone with Liberal or progressive values, there's a ton of problems with it.

I believe my counter-argument to that argument was pretty good.

My point was that you gave examples of bad policy. Rerun simply dismissed it saying that bad policy is good policy in the eye of the beholder.

I couldn't disagree more. Bad policy is bad policy. GST cut is a great example, there's no way you could rationally make a case that that was good policy no matter what your stripes or "poison."

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ya, my apologies. I should've just ignored the obvious trolling. I can't lie though...the fact that the CPC has stopped this low just excites me because they know they're in trouble.

Political threads on this forum have become insufferable.

There really is no room for intelligent debate anymore. I find it dominated by left-of-centre activists, and if anyone dares provide an alternative point of view, they get jumped on and now called 'trolls'.

For those who are supposed to represent the side that typically self-proclaims itself to be the open-minded ones (although not always on this board, just seems to be a mantra of progressives in general), they just do not like to debate fairly in this thread. I'm not saying the other side is perfect, but they seem to be more open to fair debate.

In particular, this thread has degenerated from a good discussion on the byelection to raging piling on of all things associated with the CPC. And if anyone suggests otherwise, the same old suspects pull a drive-by on them.

Slava, I didn't use your post to single you out, but I will admit that it was the use of the word 'troll' that ignited me to write this post imploring for a higher standard of discussion. To be honest, when it comes to standards of discussion, I find you to be one of the few good ones around here. You are informed, involved, and even ran yourself so you bring a lot to the table in these discussions.

I'm just disappointed that after years of following the going-ons on this forum that the conversations aren't what they used to be.

Shame.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Fully agree. McGuinty's comments were anti-oil sands, but if you were considering Turner or Locke than you probably don't care enough about that for it to effect your vote. If you're #1 issue is continued oil sands expansion then you wouldn't dabble in voting Green, NDP, or Liberal. It's pretty clear where each of those parties stands vis-a-vis the oil industry. It's really just different shades of how hard to hit the industry relative to the current operating environment.

NDP -Will not allow Northern Gateway, Trans-mountain expansion, and has made openly hostile remarks with regards to Keystone XL claiming it better to 'keep refining and upgrading jobs in Canada'

Greens - It's the green party, regardless of how smooth Chris Turner talks about the issue, it's not like anything he advocates is going to improve things from an oil and gas industry perspective. At best in his world the oil sands are tolerated to the extent that their economic benefits are collected and diverted into subsidizing green jobs.

Liberals - Their 2011 election platform specifically mentioned 'banning tanker traffic off the west coast.' Taken literally that means that Northern Gateway and the Trans-Mountain expansion are up in flames, and it also puts the continuing existance of Trans-Mountain and the tanker traffic it creates out of Burnaby at risk. That said I would hardly imagine that the Liberals would shut down Kinder-Morgan's existing Trans-Mountain pipeline (They would get sued for billions). Thinking about that, it makes me wonder if the Liberals even knew there already was tanker traffic off the west-coast. If not it speaks volumes about their regard for one of Canada's most important industries.

I actually agree with most of this... but I figure that if Alberta starts electing MPs from these parties, we might be able to change their positions on our industry. It's much easier to scapegoat a region that doesn't support you than one that does (or at least could).

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Liberals - Their 2011 election platform specifically mentioned 'banning tanker traffic off the west coast.' Taken literally that means that Northern Gateway and the Trans-Mountain expansion are up in flames, and it also puts the continuing existance of Trans-Mountain and the tanker traffic it creates out of Burnaby at risk. That said I would hardly imagine that the Liberals would shut down Kinder-Morgan's existing Trans-Mountain pipeline (They would get sued for billions). Thinking about that, it makes me wonder if the Liberals even knew there already was tanker traffic off the west-coast. If not it speaks volumes about their regard for one of Canada's most important industries.

I don't know the answer to that, but I do think that if they want to broaden their appeal westward (and they should) they are going to have to demonstrate to Albertans that they understand how the oil industry works, and its fundamental role in the Canadian economy more generally.

Honestly, it's one reason they should be a bit careful about Justin Trudeau, as much as he seems to have some rock-star charisma going right now. When the bloom is off the rose in a few months, will he be able to persuade Western voters that he understands our concerns, and our desire to protect our main industry (while being cognizant of sustainability issues and soforth)? I'm not saying he can't, but I think it's at least a question that needs to be asked.

As for McGuinty, I'm not convinced his opinion matters to anybody.

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

My point was that you gave examples of bad policy. Rerun simply dismissed it saying that bad policy is good policy in the eye of the beholder.

I couldn't disagree more. Bad policy is bad policy. GST cut is a great example, there's no way you could rationally make a case that that was good policy no matter what your stripes or "poison."

Sure there is.

Yes, if they were going to cut a tax, it should have been a proportionate amount of income tax as opposed to GST. A consumption tax is always economically more sound for government revenue than a lump sum tax. That said, a lower rate of total taxation increases consumption more than it decreases government share of GDP and sometimes increases revenues if spending is higher.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by SebC

I actually agree with most of this... but I figure that if Alberta starts electing MPs from these parties, we might be able to change their positions on our industry. It's much easier to scapegoat a region that doesn't support you than one that does.

I can agree with that statement, because having Alberta MP's might bridge the knowlege gap with the Liberal party when it comes to oil and gas related issues. Over the course of history the Liberals have proven to be malleable on issues if it makes a difference for them electorally. That said it's still pretty hard to overcome an obvious historical bias against the industry coming from their party.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Sure there is.

Yes, if they were going to cut a tax, it should have been a proportionate amount of income tax as opposed to GST. A consumption tax is always economically more sound for government revenue than a lump sum tax. That said, a lower rate of total taxation increases consumption more than it decreases government share of GDP and sometimes increases revenues if spending is higher.

We are nowhere near the inflection point of the Laffer curve.

The GST cut was objectively bad in the type of tax that was cut. That is the crux of the argument. (I would go further and say that the tax cut should've also been delayed until it could've been used as a stimulus measure.)

[mariners_fever]

Originally Posted by SebC

We are nowhere near the inflection point of the Laffer curve.

The GST cut was objectively bad in the type of tax that was cut. That is the crux of the argument. (I would go further and say that the tax cut should've also been delayed until it could've been used as a stimulus measure.)

Indeed, and I have indicated agreement that it is always more sound to cut a lump sum tax, however many would agree that a cut in any type of tax serves to increase consumption.

Likewise, many economists of all stripes agree that Government spending should stay at about 20% of GDP. Because we are far above that point, it could be argued that we've done of the other side of the inflection point of the Laffer curve.

But I do agree that cutting GST was imperfect, but not necessarily bad either.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I can agree with that statement, because having Alberta MP's might bridge the knowlege gap with the Liberal party when it comes to oil and gas related issues. Over the course of history the Liberals have proven to be malleable on issues if it makes a difference for them electorally. That said it's still pretty hard to overcome an obvious historical bias against the industry coming from their party.

It's particularly problematic since it's easy for voters to see that bias--it confirms something many already believe about the Liberal party, with some historical justification. Those kinds of image problems are very hard to repair, and unfortunately what you generously call the "malleability" of the party on certain issues looks like pandering to some voters, particularly if there's a lack of trust.

I don't mean to be down on the party--I've voted for them in the past. But it's helpful to be clear-eyed about their brand problems in this province, which go way back. Honestly, I wonder to what extent Chris Turner is benefiting from that--as a more palatable alternative to the Tories to some voters who might have supported Richardson before but are looking for a new home now given their dissatisfaction with Harper (and with their CPC choice in this byelection). We often ask "what would happen if this were a two-way race," but in a way it might be more apt to ask what factors have created an opening for the Green party in what has historically been a Tory stronghold?

One possibility is that the key factor is the local weakness of the Liberal brand, which is just an unacceptable alternative to a lot of voters. If that's so then the discussion of "vote-splitting" changes a little, since some Turner voters will have been Tories, not Liberals, in the past. They would thus be no more likely to vote Liberal if Turner drops out than if he doesn't.

Keep in mind, even if Locke wins this riding, he will do so with a very narrow plurality. This byelection has been more about the collapse of the Tory vote than an increase in the progressive vote. Lee Richardson got (if I recall correctly) 55% of the vote in Calgary Centre last time around.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Political threads on this forum have become insufferable.

There really is no room for intelligent debate anymore. I find it dominated by left-of-centre activists, and if anyone dares provide an alternative point of view, they get jumped on and now called 'trolls'.

For those who are supposed to represent the side that typically self-proclaims itself to be the open-minded ones (although not always on this board, just seems to be a mantra of progressives in general), they just do not like to debate fairly in this thread. I'm not saying the other side is perfect, but they seem to be more open to fair debate.

In particular, this thread has degenerated from a good discussion on the byelection to raging piling on of all things associated with the CPC. And if anyone suggests otherwise, the same old suspects pull a drive-by on them.

Slava, I didn't use your post to single you out, but I will admit that it was the use of the word 'troll' that ignited me to write this post imploring for a higher standard of discussion. To be honest, when it comes to standards of discussion, I find you to be one of the few good ones around here. You are informed, involved, and even ran yourself so you bring a lot to the table in these discussions.

I'm just disappointed that after years of following the going-ons on this forum that the conversations aren't what they used to be.

Shame.

I agree that things have degenerated here and have become quite polarized. I used the word troll here because that's what it was. Shawnski posted his bait, I stupidly took it and he hasn't posted since.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mariners_fever

Indeed, and I have indicated agreement that it is always more sound to cut a lump sum tax, however many would agree that a cut in any type of tax serves to increase consumption.

Likewise, many economists of all stripes agree that Government spending should stay at about 20% of GDP. Because we are far above that point, it could be argued that we've done of the other side of the inflection point of the Laffer curve.

But I do agree that cutting GST was imperfect, but not necessarily bad either.

The Laffer curve inflection point is the point where government revenues drop (estimated to be around 70%, globally), whereas the 20% recommendation you cite is presumably derived from net public benefit - a very different criterion that yields a very different result.

Of course, the Conservatives also made huge increases in spending even before we went into recession.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

It's particularly problematic since it's easy for voters to see that bias--it confirms something many already believe about the Liberal party, with some historical justification. Those kinds of image problems are very hard to repair, and unfortunately what you generously call the "malleability" of the party on certain issues looks like pandering to some voters, particularly if there's a lack of trust.

I don't mean to be down on the party--I've voted for them in the past. But it's helpful to be clear-eyed about their brand problems in this province, which go way back. Honestly, I wonder to what extent Chris Turner is benefiting from that--as a more palatable alternative to the Tories to some voters who might have supported Richardson before but are looking for a new home now given their dissatisfaction with Harper (and with their CPC choice in this byelection).

The thing is, repairing the relationship between Albertans and the Liberal party would be accelerated if Albertans were to extend an olive branch to the party. Electing Locke does that, electing Turner doesn't.

The election of a Liberal would also present a vastly greater threat to the Conservatives than electing a Green. And I think we do want to threaten them, so that they don't just treat us as an obedient cash cow (expressed by cancelling our rec centre funding, for example).

[Shawnski]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Seeing the Sun dredge up a two-year old quote from a person who wasn't the leader of the party at that time, and--let's face it--may NEVER be the leader of the party, is the first convincing evidence I've seen that the Tories believe they could lose this riding.

Wow, powerfully worded IFF. Sure glad that his actual words, on film, persuaded you to rally against it considering your absense of similar resolve for those posting decades long insinuations about Ron Paul and newletters penned in his name while he was back in the private sector working as a doctor. Forget for the time being that Dr. Paul has repeatedly publically denounced the few items, he is still a villain.

But Trudeau? Heck, it was only two years ago... and it WAS his own words.

Hypocrite.

[c.t.ner]

It looks like a poll is about to be released. Different company than Forum Research. (surveyed 400 people and MOE is 4.8%)

"@waltondawn New #yyccentre poll by Return on Insight puts Tories at 37%, Lib 32%, Green 17% & NDP 12%."