Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Its not the NDP is endorsing this thing, it is some people who support their party.

It says right in that article that former provincial Conservative cabinet member supports it as well.

I doubt I'm voting NDP but this has as much of an impact on my vote as the Conservative supporters who are against gay marriage.

It isn't?

can you explain what Mulcair means by this then?

In Calgary on Tuesday night, Mulcair said the New Democrats welcome the ideas contained in the manifesto.

"I do understand the profound desire for change reflected in that document," he said.

"We've talked about a cap and trade system, that is our policy, that's what we will be doing."

"Before the election, we are going to tell Canadians what we are going to do and once we are elected, we are actually going to do it, it has never been tried," Mulcair said.

Sounds like a pretty strong endorsement to me...no?

[FlamesAddiction]

The Liberals removed a candidate in Edmonton for some Facebook comments that the party felt were not compatible with party views. Nothing too offensive, but definitely on the extreme side. He said he is going to run as an independent.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...tion-1.3230350

A journalist is alleging that the CPC is using sneaky methods to get "likes" on Facebook to make them look like people are endorsing them in the election. They are saying that malware might be being used to make "likes" for other things, go to the CPC Facebook page. I don't know if they can prove anything though.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...book-1.3229622

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by transplant99

It isn't?

can you explain what Mulcair means by this then?



Sounds like a pretty strong endorsement to me...no?

He welcomes the ideas and is going to implement a cap and trade system is how I read it.

But honestly this is getting no media attention and is a non-issue at this point in terms of attracting or losing votes.

[RubberDuck]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

But honestly this is getting no media attention and is a non-issue at this point in terms of attracting or losing votes.

Two articles in the National Post alone this morning:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...entrist-voters

http://business.financialpost.com/fp...leap-backwards

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Table 5

As much as that manifesto is mumbo jumbo, I can get behind this as a goal to strive for. I don't think its crazy to want to wean ourselves off of having to burn coal to power our cities.

There are a few towns in the US who are already getting all of their energy from renewable sources...ie Aspen is now running entirely on renewable energy http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ewable-energy/. Yes, small (and usually rich) places for sure, but a small step forward that shows that things are possible.

It would be nice if Canada had some ambitious environmental goals to shoot for. All we ever seem to do is stick our head in the sand and point fingers at others. Some leadership and ambition would be nice for a change. I think shooting for our major cities to use only renewable energy is a great goal, that even if it's never fully reached, would be a great achievement.

Quebec energy is virtually all hydro (believe its 0.2% non-renewables).

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by RubberDuck

Two articles in the National Post alone this morning:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...entrist-voters

http://business.financialpost.com/fp...leap-backwards

I'm sure the Sun wrote about it too, and it may yet become a big issue but for now its back page filler.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

He welcomes the ideas and is going to implement a cap and trade system is how I read it.

But honestly this is getting no media attention and is a non-issue at this point in terms of attracting or losing votes.

So...he welcomes the ideas but doesn't endorse them? Are we already playing semantics in this discussion?

As for cap and trade, nothing but a disaster for Canada's economy....period. Not going to go on and on about it for 50th time on this board though.

Even worse it wont make a lick of difference to the actual harm being done to the environment (which is what they are trying to do...right?) as Canada's contribution is less than 3% of what happens overall.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So...he welcomes the ideas but doesn't endorse them? Are we already playing semantics in this discussion?

As for cap and trade, nothing but a disaster for Canada's economy....period. Not going to go on and on about it for 50th time on this board though.

Even worse it wont make a lick of difference to the actual harm being done to the environment (which is what they are trying to do...right?) as Canada's contribution is less than 3% of what happens overall.

FYI - I'm not an NDP supporter. I'm just telling you how I read it.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Ducay

We (Alberta) have a big impact on exports and Fx rates through oil, but Toronto basically still runs all banking and capital markets, and thus, the economy. And that ignores the fact the GTA alone has more people than all of Alberta.

This is complete nonsense, the foundation of the economy is not banks.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by zamler

This is complete nonsense, the foundation of the economy is not banks.

Ah, and you thought 2008-2009 went swimmingly when the capital markets siezed up, even momentarily?

No access to capital equates to no economic development or growth. Without them we are nothing. Just look how companies are being crippled this year when their bank lines are being reduced by 10%.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've been getting about 1 polling call a week on the land line. Anyone else have that frequency?

I've gotten one poll call since the election began... and it was a poll about municiple spending priorities.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Even worse it wont make a lick of difference to the actual harm being done to the environment (which is what they are trying to do...right?) as Canada's contribution is less than 3% of what happens overall.

A couple of thoughts:

If Canada's record is a contribution of 3% of global emissions, that is a truly appalling record for a country with .5% of the world's population. It is made all the more appalling by the following:

(1) we are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world and therefore have the means to afford the cleanest technologies; and

(2) we have one of the highest standards of living in the world and therefore have the most room to sacrifice.


I therefore find it really very offensive for people to say that Canada has no moral obligation to reduce emissions until the people of China and India, with far lower per capita emissions and far, far lower resources and standards of living, make the sacrifices first.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Then grow a set and vote for who you want to win.

And I'm in the same boat as you. None of the candidates are appealing to me, and there is one party who I really don't want to see win, but this constant negative campaigning is mitigated when people get to the booth and actually vote for who they want to win.

It's a trap!

Polls are where you vote your heart, in the booth is often where you vote strategically. We saw this in the Calgary Centre byelection - chosen because it's a race I followed closely: NDP got half the support they had in polling on election day.

If you vote NDP or Green in Calgary Confederation, Len Webber thanks you.

[killer_carlson]

but if you vote Liberal and you are doing it strategically, it will also be misinterpreted as supporting the entire platform rather than supporting the platform you like.

the platform you actually like will end up under-represented in the final results, and that is also a trap.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

but if you vote Liberal and you are doing it strategically, it will also be misinterpreted as supporting the entire platform rather than supporting the platform you like.

the platform you actually like will end up under-represented in the final results, and that is also a trap.

Great. Now I can't vote for anyone?! I don't even think that the party leaders support every single thing in the platform.

[Fuzz]

Ideally you would vote for the MP you want, regardless of party. Unfortunately in most cases local MP's aren't very effective at doing much to affect your life. Realistically, you cast your vote to get the most ideal government(in your eyes). Sometimes this means you get to vote for an MP AND the party AND the leader you want. Other times you vote for the person most likely to block a government you don't like. You may not get your #1 choice, but sometimes #2 is better than #3.

If you are in a close riding, and your vote can actually make a difference, I don't really understand the point in voting for the guy in 3rd or 4th just to throw a number in their column, when you instead could have replaced the guy you really dislike.

Sigh. One day we might get a more representative voting system. As it is, best to work with what we have to get the best result possible.

[username]

Originally Posted by Makarov

A couple of thoughts:

If Canada's record is a contribution of 3% of global emissions, that is a truly appalling record for a country with .5% of the world's population. It is made all the more appalling by the following:

I agree, but there are many other factors at play here - below are 3 big ones:

1. We are a cold climate, as such our homes need to be heated in the winter which leads to a large carbon foot print.

2. Our country is huge and our population is relatively low (square foot per person is the largest in the world). This means you basically have to own a car if you want to get anywhere (obviously there are exceptions). There is no limit to the size we can build some cities which leads to longer commute times etc.

3. Due to the size of Canada we have larger homes than most countries because we have the space to build them. Large homes consume more energy.

Our CO2 footprint is more a function of the size of Canada and our relatively small population than it is Canadians being "bad polluters".

I agree that we should want to reduce our footprint, however it's not as easy as saying we are a wealthy nation, therefore our carbon footprint should be lower than developing nations. Our per capital CO2 output is high for a reason.

edit: I'm not saying this makes it right, just that it's more difficult for Canadians to have lower CO2/capital emissions than other nations. A change in lifestyle is required to really lower our CO2 emissions and I don't think Canadians are ready to give up their 2000 square foot homes and 45 minute commute times in the suburbs.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Makarov

A couple of thoughts:

If Canada's record is a contribution of 3% of global emissions, that is a truly appalling record for a country with .5% of the world's population. It is made all the more appalling by the following:

(1) we are also one of the wealthiest countries in the world and therefore have the means to afford the cleanest technologies; and

(2) we have one of the highest standards of living in the world and therefore have the most room to sacrifice.


I therefore find it really very offensive for people to say that Canada has no moral obligation to reduce emissions until the people of China and India, with far lower per capita emissions and far, far lower resources and standards of living, make the sacrifices first.

Aside from the very legitimate reasons that username posted, there was already discussion about this earlier in this thread: Two of the major factors for our higher than average emissions was the fact that we live in ridiculous homes, drive a lot more than other countries in similar geographic and climate situations like Russia.

I would vote for a party if one came out tomorrow and proposed a policy that levied an environmental tax on homes for every sq. ft above 1000. Increase fuel taxes by another 20-30c/L to discourage driving.

Tax Albertans for being on coal power and incentivize the change towards NG or nuclear.

My main issue with this is that the oilsands (and O&G) is being asked to shoulder 100% of the reduction of emissions with all the statements coming out (oil needs to stay in the ground etc.). What about the everyday Canadian driving a ridiculous truck, or living in a 3500 sq ft home that needs to be heated? That should be punished as much as the oilsands. What about those dirty refineries and factories out east? Same deal.

Edit: Previous discussion + stats around post #774. Here's an article about why I don't agree with the NDP environmental policy from a month ago. http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-in-the-ground

[username]

Originally Posted by Regorium

I would vote for a party if one came out tomorrow and proposed a policy that levied an environmental tax on homes for every sq. ft above 1000. Increase fuel taxes by another 20-30c/L to discourage driving.

The problem is, no one out East wants to take any accountability for Canada's pollution issues. It's easier for the NDP to say it's Alberta's fault, stop their oil sands development and then you can vote for us! We solve our pollution issue and no one out east is directly impacted.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

but if you vote Liberal and you are doing it strategically, it will also be misinterpreted as supporting the entire platform rather than supporting the platform you like.

the platform you actually like will end up under-represented in the final results, and that is also a trap.

Its all one big trap in the end; but at least in this election it is likely that the strategic voting will end up in a decent mix of parties benefitting and yielding a minority gov't (which party, who knows).

Unlike the AB election where all the strategic (aka vote for change) votes went to a party and candidates who had no business winning that many seats. If we had an effective Liberal party in AB, we might have a more moderate take on change, rather than the extreme 180 we've signed ourselves up for.