2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Parallex]

I got a telephone poll today... first time ever getting a federal election poll. Some outfit called Forum Research pretty general stuff voting preference, who (leader) would you most want to have dinner with, 2008 voting preference, May in debate, 1-on-1 debate interest, issue importance.

Too bad it wasn't an invite to a focus group... I love focus groups. $ for opinions rocks (last focus group I was in was even better I got beer & $ for my opinions).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

For every 1 person who thinks like that, I can find two that vote BECAUSE of the incentive. I jump back and forth between the Greens and the NDP, depending on who is pissing me off the least on any given week (or who has the better candidate, despite party policy). However, if I planned on voting Green in a riding where they had no shot at finishing a distant 3rd, I used to stay home. What was the point of taking a half hour out of my day to go to the polling station if my vote was going to be completely 100% waste of time. However, smaller parties like the Green party are touting the vote subsidy so that people, even in ridings where they have little hope, will get out to vote.

This is the worst thing about the per-vote funding; it discourages strategic voting.

[Devils'Advocate]

You think "strategic voting" is a good thing?!?

In my case, I'd rather stay home than hold my nose and vote Liberal. I think "strategic voting" compromises too much on people's principles.

Personally, I think the problem is with our electoral system. I have no problem ranking the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives on a ranking ballot, but would never, could never put them one and only as my top choice.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You think "strategic voting" is a good thing?!?

In my case, I'd rather stay home than hold my nose and vote Liberal. I think "strategic voting" compromises too much on people's principles.

Personally, I think the problem is with our electoral system. I have no problem ranking the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives on a ranking ballot, but would never, could never put them one and only as my top choice.

I agree that the problem is with our electoral system, but, within the confines of the system we have, I do think strategic voting is a good thing, as it produces the same results as a run-off system (and, by extension, and instant run-off system, i.e. ranking ballot) with the media polls replacing the early rounds of voting.

[transplant99]

here is the answer on the cap and trade I asked about a few days ago.

Thanks for the question. Currently Alberta, BC Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec are working with a number of US states to implement a cap and trade program.

In the Liberal platform the money raised through the auctioning of credits under the cap and trade system will stay in Alberta. It will be invested through partnerships with the province and industry in technologies and science to reduce green house gas emissions and ensure the protection of water. It will create jobs, many of them green, in Alberta, and technologies that can be exported to the world. A recent CD Howe study confirms that this kind of policy can in fact be implemented without cash outflows from the provinces in which money is collected.

Moreover, the Liberal cap and trade policy will apply evenly and fairly to all sectors of the economy across the entire country. The oil sands will not be singled out.

I am meeting with members of the oil and gas industry to better understand and communicate on this issue. Is this helpful? If you have specific questions I will raise them with the party and the industry experts myself, and get back to you.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'll put down my bets

Duceppe 2-1 (Beats Harper, loses to Ignatieff, beats Layton)
Ignatieff 2-1 (Beats Layton, Beats Duceppe, loses to Harper)
Harper 2-1 (Beats Ignatieff, beats Layton, looses to Duceppe)
Layton 0-3

I actually agree with this scenario as well.

Depending upon the issues they engage on, I can see Duceppe beating (trouncing even) Ignatieff. Michael would do well to tiptoe around Gilles, take a few jabs, and avoid going for knock-out punches.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by transplant99

here is the answer on the cap and trade I asked about a few days ago.

Thanks for following through on this.....very interesting to get the answer. It was even less vague than expected, though obviously not full of specifics.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Thanks for following through on this.....very interesting to get the answer. It was even less vague than expected, though obviously not full of specifics.

Yeah there really isnt a lot there to chew on and I said as much when I thanked her for her response.

Its a very complicated idea at its core so its not surprising there isnt a lot of specifics. I just see no way however, that any such scenario doesnt equate into a loss of jobs...regardless of how many "green" jobs are created out of it...at least in the short/medium term.

[Tinordi]

Yup, climate change policy is going to be initially painful prior to the economic restructuring. There's a host of modeling to show that the pain is relatively minor. Think instead of 2% growth it's 1.5% growth over a period of 10 years.

If you're legitimately interested I can provide a host of different well researched material on the relatively small economic effects from carbon pricing.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Its a very complicated idea at its core so its not surprising there isnt a lot of specifics. I just see no way however, that any such scenario doesnt equate into a loss of jobs...regardless of how many "green" jobs are created out of it...at least in the short/medium term.

We're kinda starved for options. The current Government's official position on Climate Change includes Carbon Pricing/Emission Trading. So really it's coming regardless of who wins.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If you're legitimately interested I can provide a host of different well researched material on the relatively small economic effects from carbon pricing.

Yes please.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yup, climate change policy is going to be initially painful prior to the economic restructuring. There's a host of modeling to show that the pain is relatively minor. Think instead of 2% growth it's 1.5% growth over a period of 10 years.

If you're legitimately interested I can provide a host of different well researched material on the relatively small economic effects from carbon pricing.

All fine and dandy...but IMO you dont start making such changes in a recovering economy. It will only make said recovery take even longer.

Things will get better eventually, and likely even as good as things were about 6 years ago. Thats when you start to implement such massive overhauls of this magnitude.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by transplant99

here is the answer on the cap and trade I asked about a few days ago.

Green Jobs are BS. If it needs government funding, it's not sustainable and you could bet you a$$ it's not as lucreative as actual oil patch jobs. This is a good policy if you're one of those bioscience graduates who can't get a job, but it collectively hurts everyone else. Cap and Trade is subsidy to Quebec and Ontario where productivity will go to die. It will actually encourage less productivity in Ontario and Quebec as a legitimate business strategy will become 'produce less and collect cheques from Alberta and Sask oil/gas/electricity companies' as carbon credits become more expensive.

[Tinordi]

The most recent extensive economic study was published by the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy. The focus of the study was to evaluate what the costs to Canada would be if it implemented carbon pricing and if the U.S. didn't.

What they found was that if Canada implemented a $30 a tonne carbon charge and the U.S. didn't then the economic effect should still be small.

http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/...report-eng.pdf

Specifically, if you look at page 120 of that report, it shows what the costs per province would be. In the business as usual scenario (no carbon pricing) Alberta's growth was 2.1%. If Canada adopted a $30 per tonne charge and the U.S. didn't then the growth was 2.0%. A .1% change.

Now these costs are likely underestimated. The model they used assumes that economic shifting to less carbon intensive sectors is an imperfect substitute for Canadian industrial and manufacturing demand. Less technical, this means that as we all adjust to move to less fossil fuel intensive energy use, new products and output to satisfy that new demand will come from at least half of domestic production. This is too optimistic but I understand why the modellers did it this way, because they don't have a global energy-economy model to look at specific sector's trade flows. What I'm saying is that the costs are likely to be higher because production would be outsourced outside of Canada in some sectors.

But even then, the impact isn't likely to be that severe. There are many solid arguments that the Oil Sands sector is significantly over-invested in. Right now in a world with impending climate change policies we might be making a serious strategic miscalculation in putting all of our eggs in the unconventional oil extraction basket. That's not to say that no unconventional should be happening but that we should get the right economic signals to diversify the economy more. That may initially hurt people in oil and gas, but if we believe that oil is getting scarcer and because oil is subject to international markets we're simply delaying extraction rates that will happen anyway into the future.

Furthermore, to address transplant's concern you can design a carbon pricing system that recycles the revenues from charging carbon proportinately back to the province's that pay them so that there are no net transfers to any one province. The CD Howe institute (hardly left wing) is recommending this:

http://www.climateprosperity.ca/eng/...report-eng.pdf

What they find is that the inter-provincial effects are essentially minimized under this type of policy.

Finally, I'm getting really tired of the jobs/environment debate because, in my mind the environment trumps. The environment is the natural capital that allows us to have all of these jobs, especially in the resource extracting country that is Canada. We complain that carbon pricing will kill jobs, well guess what, so will climate change! Imagine if summertime flows of the Athabasca were reduced another 50% over the next 20 years and how that would affect oil extracting? Because it's a possibility.

It's this no more than the end of our nose thinking, from one day to the next with only concern for myself that is really going to be out downfall. We need to move on to a cleaner energy system that's the bottom line. Either we do it sooner, learn the lessons and make for more economic opportunity down the line or we are dragged there with potentially huge costs and consequences.

[CaptainCrunch]

The other impact on cap and trade is the passing of costs. The companies that have to buy these fairly expensive carbon units are not going to absorb those costs out of the goodness of their hearts, or their duty to universal good.

Everything will increase in price. Transportation will increase, the manufacturers that use petroleum based products will find their costs increase so they'll pass it on.

And lets be honest, Alberta and Saskatchewan will take the biggest kicks in the pants on Carbon cap and trade. As nice as the candidate was to reply to his email, until Ignatieff states publically how he intends to off set the potential economic impact to the Energy producing provinces then his answer really isn't trust worthy.

I would hope that if Ignatieff was elected and tried to implement it, that Alberta would shut off the taps, scream that we're now a have not province and hold out their hands for equalization.

And I completely disagree with the post above that environment trumps jobs.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by transplant99

All fine and dandy...but IMO you dont start making such changes in a recovering economy. It will only make said recovery take even longer.

Things will get better eventually, and likely even as good as things were about 6 years ago. Thats when you start to implement such massive overhauls of this magnitude.

Actually there's very good reasons to make these changes in a recovering economy. Significant numbers of unemployed allowed for less hard economic restructuring as labour can move to new productive sectors. Government spending to prop up demand can be done to prop up demand in new less carbon intensive sectors. Economic recovery is in many ways the perfect time to do it.

And besides Canada is recovered, so your argument isn't really applicable.

[Tinordi]

Cap and Trade is subsidy to Quebec and Ontario where productivity will go to die. It will actually encourage less productivity in Ontario and Quebec as a legitimate business strategy will become 'produce less and collect cheques from Alberta and Sask oil/gas/electricity companies' as carbon credits become more expensive.

Explain, specifically the subsidy to Quebec and Ontario.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would hope that if Ignatieff was elected and tried to implement it, that Alberta would shut off the taps, scream that we're now a have not province and hold out their hands for equalization.

Shrug, the Tories plan on doing it too and have for some time. I suspect that's why they've really made no hay of it being in the Liberal platform.

[Slava]

Are the Tories actually doing anything until the budget is balanced? Seems like we could shut government down for a few years and not really miss anything. I guess they can come in, cut that pesky little $2.2 Billion to Quebec and then do nothing until the budget balances?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Actually there's very good reasons to make these changes in a recovering economy. Significant numbers of unemployed allowed for less hard economic restructuring as labour can move to new productive sectors. Government spending to prop up demand can be done to prop up demand in new less carbon intensive sectors. Economic recovery is in many ways the perfect time to do it.

And besides Canada is recovered, so your argument isn't really applicable.

Well then...I suspect you will be voting Tory then? I mean that is about as good a performance any party could have accomplished in the face of the recent global meltdown.

And no...losing jobs in a weakened economy is fools gold theory...or NDP theory at any rate.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Are the Tories actually doing anything until the budget is balanced? Seems like we could shut government down for a few years and not really miss anything. I guess they can come in, cut that pesky little $2.2 Billion to Quebec and then do nothing until the budget balances?

I'd actually be very happy if things played out that way. Minus the cutting a cheque to Quebec part. For me that's a reason to vote FOR them.