Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canadian Politics] Takin' out the trash to replace it with... whoops.

1424345474862

Posts

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Maybe if alberta had a pst/hst they wouldnt whine about equalization payments

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What does a provincial sales tax have to do with federal equalization payments?

    sig.gif
    ArcticLancerKetBraGnome-InterruptusCaulk Bite 6
  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    They'd be less needed if they had their own provincial sales tax. They didn't need one when they were rolling in oil etc, but they're slowing losing that advantage .... would be my guess.

    Some see the NDP loss as good for the federal NDP -

    "Notley and federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh don't see eye to eye on the controversial issue of pipelines — particularly the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which Notley staked her government on and Singh opposes. Notley's defeat might eliminate that ideological rift within the NDP movement, said Béland.

    Bratt disagrees: He said he believes Notley isn't going anywhere and will still be a lingering pain in the side for the federal NDP. 'There's huge frictions between the Alberta NDP and the federal NDP,' Bratt said. 'Having Notley gone isn't going to really happen to them.'"

    The federal NDP are living in a dream world if they think anyone other than them are going to leave all that money in the ground. I feel like Notley adjusted to the situation and worked hard to make things happen for the province, even when that industry is fairly at odds with the party's usual stance. I'd look seriously at Notley as a federal NDP leader more than I would Jagmeet.

    Nosf on
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    They'd be less needed if they had their own provincial sales tax. They didn't need one when they were rolling in oil etc, but they're slowing losing that advantage .... would be my guess.

    Some see the NDP loss as good for the federal NDP -

    "Notley and federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh don't see eye to eye on the controversial issue of pipelines — particularly the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which Notley staked her government on and Singh opposes. Notley's defeat might eliminate that ideological rift within the NDP movement, said Béland.

    Bratt disagrees: He said he believes Notley isn't going anywhere and will still be a lingering pain in the side for the federal NDP. 'There's huge frictions between the Alberta NDP and the federal NDP,' Bratt said. 'Having Notley gone isn't going to really happen to them.'"

    The federal NDP are living in a dream world if they think anyone other than them are going to leave all that money in the ground. I feel like Notley adjusted to the situation and worked hard to make things happen for the province, even when that industry is fairly at odds with the party's usual stance. I'd look seriously at Notley as a federal NDP leader more than I would Jagmeet.

    So basically, that analyst would prefer a federal NDP that isn't really the NDP. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Totally solid plan.

  • NosfNosf Registered User regular
    The analyst doesn't actually specify any preference for federal NDP policy, just looks at the rift between the two.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Maybe if alberta had a pst/hst they wouldnt whine about equalization payments

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What does a provincial sales tax have to do with federal equalization payments?

    Alberta spent decades with no PST and low income tax because they lucked into having a bunch of oil they did some bootstraps.
    Now, with that being less reliable, and without some major traditional revenue streams that all of the other provinces have, they are short on money.
    Introducing a PST and realistic income tax rates would probably go a long way (and is something they should have done long before disaster hit). They won't, but they should.
    Seems simple enough.

    mrondeaushrykeGnome-InterruptusThe Cow KingAegisCaulk Bite 6
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    Nosf wrote: »
    The analyst doesn't actually specify any preference for federal NDP policy, just looks at the rift between the two.


    They expressed preference for the person who is at odds with basically every other federal and provincial NDP in the country on oil, energy, environment, tax policy, and who tried to win over the pro-oil crowd and was rewarded with a loss. I'm not going to applaud an NDP leader for being pro-oil. If anything, I hope the federal left and center parties learn from this that the pro-oil crowd is just going to vote conservative no matter what, and that they shouldn't be pandered to.

    TubularLuggage on
    mrondeauGreasyKidsStuff
  • DaimarDaimar A Million Feet Tall of Awesome Registered User regular
    I'm kind of surprised people are suggesting a PST since that is a regressive tax which impacts lower income people much more than higher income earners. Tinkering with the personal and corporate income tax rates and brackets is much more progressive since the more you earn the more you pay.

    steam_sig.png
    twitch.tv/kragaar
    Gnome-InterruptusLordSolarMachariusCanadianWolverineCaulk Bite 6
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Basically, perequation and other federal transfer are supposed to compensate for the uneven distribution of economic activity, not for lack of taxation.

    For example, when oil is worth a lot and it's export is destroying, among other things, industrial activity, then the industrialized provinces get money to compensate, so that all provinces can support the same level of services, if they have adequate taxation.

    The exact formula has issues, and we still have not recovered from the previous oil boom, plus the trade wars, so ironically, Alberta is still doing well from a perequation point of view. They just lack taxation.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • EtiowsaEtiowsa Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    I'm kind of surprised people are suggesting a PST since that is a regressive tax which impacts lower income people much more than higher income earners. Tinkering with the personal and corporate income tax rates and brackets is much more progressive since the more you earn the more you pay.

    But that might upset our corporate overlords, and then they'll take all their money and run off somewhere else. The wealthier you are the easier it is to avoid paying taxes, so tax the poor and they can't do shit about it. The system works!

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Daimar wrote: »
    I'm kind of surprised people are suggesting a PST since that is a regressive tax which impacts lower income people much more than higher income earners. Tinkering with the personal and corporate income tax rates and brackets is much more progressive since the more you earn the more you pay.

    As I mentioned in the US Tax thread, consumption taxes are generally associated with better welfare states. They work and they work well.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Nosf wrote: »
    The analyst doesn't actually specify any preference for federal NDP policy, just looks at the rift between the two.


    They expressed preference for the person who is at odds with basically every other federal and provincial NDP in the country on oil, energy, environment, tax policy, and who tried to win over the pro-oil crowd and was rewarded with a loss. I'm not going to applaud an NDP leader for being pro-oil. If anything, I hope the federal left and center parties learn from this that the pro-oil crowd is just going to vote conservative no matter what, and that they shouldn't be pandered to.

    Or maybe she would have lost even worse if she had taken a harder position on the oil issue. I'm not sure it's yet clear which way that goes.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Daimar wrote: »
    I'm kind of surprised people are suggesting a PST since that is a regressive tax which impacts lower income people much more than higher income earners. Tinkering with the personal and corporate income tax rates and brackets is much more progressive since the more you earn the more you pay.

    As I mentioned in the US Tax thread, consumption taxes are generally associated with better welfare states. They work and they work well.

    As well, a small PST (with exemptions on plenty of items) doesn't preclude changes to income tax and corporate tax.
    Previous conservative Alberta governments sure as hell didn't forego a PST out of concern for the poor.

    shrykemrondeau
  • vsovevsove ....also yes. Registered User regular
    The pipeline had an 80% approval in Edmonton, which remained NDP.

    Alberta has managed to turn oil and gas into part of the provincial identity. I don't think you can ever form government in the province without at least partially supporting the industry.

    The flip side, of course, is that there should be no reason for the Liberals and NDP on a federal level to do the same. Alberta has chosen to double down on that industry. No one else is forcing us to.

    WATCH THIS SPACE.
    Gnome-InterruptusKetBraCaulk Bite 6
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    Diorinix wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Diorinix wrote: »
    A few other big things to note with the AB election:

    - Voter turnout up from 2015 ~4.5% (to 55)
    - combined vote totals as a percent for former Wildrose and PC parties closely match total UCP total (~51% in 2015 vs ~53% this year)
    - NDP vote totals as a percent went down roughly 10%, from 44 to 35%
    - Alberta Party went up from 2% to 10%

    This province is less divided than ever... against progressive ideals. The NDP lost support, and the Alberta Party grew. The full conservative wing went nowhere, only consolidated their votes from 2 parties into 1.

    It's disheartening to realize that progress wasn't being made in my home. I'm gonna have to find a way to unplug for a while.

    So sounds like some combination of the right coming out and the left staying home. Which doesn't seem that surprising.

    Total turnout up. Conservative totals steady. NDP totals down by the same amount the centrist party went up.

    I disagree with your analysis.

    It looks to me like the UCP saw a large surge, even above 2015's Wildrose+PC totals. NDP are down a bit. Alberta Party is up a lot more then the NDP are down. And afaik we don't have the totals in yet. It's not clear that your attempt to link AP gains to NDP losses is entirely true here.

    The large seat loss and the differences in the popular vote totals compared to last election suggest that the NDP won a lot marginal races last time and a small dip in their support combined with a massive surge for conservatives flipped a ton of ridings.

    shryke on
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Maybe if alberta had a pst/hst they wouldnt whine about equalization payments

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean. What does a provincial sales tax have to do with federal equalization payments?

    Alberta spent decades with no PST and low income tax because they lucked into having a bunch of oil they did some bootstraps.
    Now, with that being less reliable, and without some major traditional revenue streams that all of the other provinces have, they are short on money.
    Introducing a PST and realistic income tax rates would probably go a long way (and is something they should have done long before disaster hit). They won't, but they should.
    Seems simple enough.

    The problem is that it's political suicide to do so. Especially here in Alberta.... Not dealing with the top brass of voters.

    PSN: Canadian_llama
  • Disco11Disco11 Registered User regular
    vsove wrote: »
    The pipeline had an 80% approval in Edmonton, which remained NDP.

    Alberta has managed to turn oil and gas into part of the provincial identity. I don't think you can ever form government in the province without at least partially supporting the industry.

    The flip side, of course, is that there should be no reason for the Liberals and NDP on a federal level to do the same. Alberta has chosen to double down on that industry. No one else is forcing us to.

    It's a fundemental problem.

    Alberta has geared it's educations to really push students into geotechnical and o&g related stuff...... And that's for the ones that actually go to school and ignored the siren call of making 100K + on a high school diploma.... Or not even that. You have the last two generations of younger folks here that built their lives around 120$ + a barrel and that has collapsed.... Human nature being what it is instead of having a moment of collective self reflection it's way easier to blame XXX.... That could be BC or Trudeau or the NDP take your pick but you have a lot of people that are making 1/4 what they made 5 years ago and need someone to blame and no way is it going to be themselves, yeah?

    The UCP has run on that... Bring back the "good old days™ "

    PSN: Canadian_llama
    shrykedjmitchellaArcticLancerGnome-Interruptus
  • KetBraKetBra FISTS OF JUSTICE! Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Diorinix wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Diorinix wrote: »
    A few other big things to note with the AB election:

    - Voter turnout up from 2015 ~4.5% (to 55)
    - combined vote totals as a percent for former Wildrose and PC parties closely match total UCP total (~51% in 2015 vs ~53% this year)
    - NDP vote totals as a percent went down roughly 10%, from 44 to 35%
    - Alberta Party went up from 2% to 10%

    This province is less divided than ever... against progressive ideals. The NDP lost support, and the Alberta Party grew. The full conservative wing went nowhere, only consolidated their votes from 2 parties into 1.

    It's disheartening to realize that progress wasn't being made in my home. I'm gonna have to find a way to unplug for a while.

    So sounds like some combination of the right coming out and the left staying home. Which doesn't seem that surprising.

    Total turnout up. Conservative totals steady. NDP totals down by the same amount the centrist party went up.

    I disagree with your analysis.

    It looks to me like the UCP saw a large surge, even above 2015's Wildrose+PC totals. NDP are down a bit. Alberta Party is up a lot more then the NDP are down. And afaik we don't have the totals in yet. It's not clear that your attempt to link AP gains to NDP losses is entirely true here.

    The large seat loss and the differences in the popular vote totals compared to last election suggest that the NDP won a lot marginal races last time and a small dip in their support combined with a massive surge for conservatives flipped a ton of ridings.

    2015's results are kind of a bad benchmark to compare to, because they represented an electorate which was very dissatisfied with its government, and was massively in flux. Pretty much everyone who voted NDP in 2015 was voting NDP for the first time, so characterising them as a reliable base is a bit ahistorical.

    If you instead compare with the 2012 election, you see some that the NDP vopte maps pretty well to the Liberal + NDP vote from that election, or is a bit down from the combined Liberal + NDP vote from 2008. Which makes sense, as the government had some pretty shitty economic fundamentals to deal with.

    ohKiGmg.png
    Steam Bnet:KetBra#1692 Yo Satan
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    It is always good to keep in mind that both Alberta and Norway went about developing their oil resources around the same time. They took very different approaches and I would submit that for the average person the Norwegian route has produced a better and more stable outcome. The Albertan approach has probably made more money for the rich people and will likely leave the average person holding the bag for any cleanup once the oil is gone.

    shrykeNova_CTubularLuggageAegisGnome-InterruptusRichyDescendant XCanadianWolverineCaulk Bite 6
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It is always good to keep in mind that both Alberta and Norway went about developing their oil resources around the same time. They took very different approaches and I would submit that for the average person the Norwegian route has produced a better and more stable outcome. The Albertan approach has probably made more money for the rich people and will likely leave the average person holding the bag for any cleanup once the oil is gone.

    The moral of the story is that we should all try to be more like Norway.

    I do this by loving winter and being a metalhead. How do you be more like Norway?

    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
    mysticjuicerCanadianWolverine
  • finnithfinnith TorontoRegistered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It is always good to keep in mind that both Alberta and Norway went about developing their oil resources around the same time. They took very different approaches and I would submit that for the average person the Norwegian route has produced a better and more stable outcome. The Albertan approach has probably made more money for the rich people and will likely leave the average person holding the bag for any cleanup once the oil is gone.

    Are AB/Norway that comparable? I thought the extraction costs/capital outlay for Norway were far lower than what AB requires, though this is partially due to the efforts of Statoil/the oil agency in Norway.

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
  • DiorinixDiorinix Registered User regular
    finnith wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It is always good to keep in mind that both Alberta and Norway went about developing their oil resources around the same time. They took very different approaches and I would submit that for the average person the Norwegian route has produced a better and more stable outcome. The Albertan approach has probably made more money for the rich people and will likely leave the average person holding the bag for any cleanup once the oil is gone.

    Are AB/Norway that comparable? I thought the extraction costs/capital outlay for Norway were far lower than what AB requires, though this is partially due to the efforts of Statoil/the oil agency in Norway.

    That, and that Norway's a sovereign country vs Alberta being a single piece within a confederation and Norway has majority state - run oil companies operating instead of primarily international corporations operating in Alberta.

    Not excusing the mishandling of royalty, tax, and management of reserves but these two examples aren't fairly compared.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Mmmmm....toasty.
    Gnome-InterruptusDisco11
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Diorinix wrote: »
    finnith wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It is always good to keep in mind that both Alberta and Norway went about developing their oil resources around the same time. They took very different approaches and I would submit that for the average person the Norwegian route has produced a better and more stable outcome. The Albertan approach has probably made more money for the rich people and will likely leave the average person holding the bag for any cleanup once the oil is gone.

    Are AB/Norway that comparable? I thought the extraction costs/capital outlay for Norway were far lower than what AB requires, though this is partially due to the efforts of Statoil/the oil agency in Norway.

    That, and that Norway's a sovereign country vs Alberta being a single piece within a confederation and Norway has majority state - run oil companies operating instead of primarily international corporations operating in Alberta.

    Not excusing the mishandling of royalty, tax, and management of reserves but these two examples aren't fairly compared.

    A lot of the important differences there are choices rather then set in stone though.

  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    Diorinix wrote: »
    finnith wrote: »
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It is always good to keep in mind that both Alberta and Norway went about developing their oil resources around the same time. They took very different approaches and I would submit that for the average person the Norwegian route has produced a better and more stable outcome. The Albertan approach has probably made more money for the rich people and will likely leave the average person holding the bag for any cleanup once the oil is gone.

    Are AB/Norway that comparable? I thought the extraction costs/capital outlay for Norway were far lower than what AB requires, though this is partially due to the efforts of Statoil/the oil agency in Norway.

    That, and that Norway's a sovereign country vs Alberta being a single piece within a confederation and Norway has majority state - run oil companies operating instead of primarily international corporations operating in Alberta.

    Not excusing the mishandling of royalty, tax, and management of reserves but these two examples aren't fairly compared.

    There are differences of course, however the approaches to how to go about developing the oil resources were choices that were made and the choices made in how to develop the Alberta resources were not the only choice available. A decent chunk of it is just how the Sovereign Wealth Fund (Heritage Funds) have been managed. Short story, After the 80s, Alberta went with short term planning and basically spent non-evergreen income from the oil development instead of doing things like raising taxes to pay for things. Norway set a rule that they couldn't take more out of the fund than 4% (the fund’s expected average annual real return.) That Scandanavian welfare state is not funded by oil revenues, but instead is pretty much paid for by very high taxes that allow the government to offer a very high level of services to the population it serves. There are pressures to raid the fund for more, but there is a lot of public opposition to doing so. Norway's handling hasn't been perfect of course, the initial plan to develop the resource at a moderate rate was dropped to a degree in the 90s and they probably overproduced when oil prices were low. Still, it is useful to look at how things were managed in Norway and compare them to how they were managed in Alberta to see the impact of short term versus long-term planning.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberta_Heritage_Savings_Trust_Fund#Criticisms

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/norways-sovereign-wealth-fund/article25973060/
    There was a time when Alberta policy makers faced the same central question as Norway’s. But they came up with radically different answers.

    “Do you want to have this benefit the generation that happens to be around while this is happening, or do you want to distribute the gains over multiple generations?” is the way the question is framed by Leo de Bever, the former head of Alberta Investment Management Corp., which manages $70-billion (Canadian) in Alberta assets, including the Heritage Fund.

    “It depends whether you are concerned with a geographical entity called Alberta and its long-term future after oil, or whether you think we’re all sort of camping out and when the oil runs out we’re going to pick up stakes and move somewhere else.”

    Norwegians are so determined to leave something behind when the oil and gas income dries up that any effort to withdraw more money from the Government Pension Fund Global – the awkward moniker given to their prosperity fund – than the rules allow would be akin to a Canadian politician trying to change the public health care system. Despite its name, the fund has no specific pension liabilities to meet.

    “What is most surprising is that in the current state, there seems to be a general consensus that the money should be kept where it is and the rules should not be changed,” said Bruno Gerard, a professor of finance at the Norwegian Business School in Oslo. “So you don’t hear claims [outside the oil sector] that more money should be pumped into the economy ... for the current generation. The general population thinks it’s perfectly fine as it is.”

    Caedwyr on
    shrykeGnome-InterruptusAl_watfinnithCanadianWolverine
  • Al_watAl_wat Registered User regular
    God do I ever hope we don't get a PM Scheer in addition to all of these provincial conservative fuck heads. I'm not very optimistic though.

    PSN: AWATTT66| XBox Live: AWATTT66| Steam: AL-WAT| Battle.Net: ALWATTS #1320
    Origin: aiwatt| Switch: SW-8499-0918-5960
    LaOsGnome-InterruptusDeciusShadowenDescendant XCaulk Bite 6El Mucho
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    I am honestly pretty concerned these days that the left hasn't been able to recognize the threat on the right enough to come together and we'll have a Conservative PM.

    RichyGnome-InterruptusDeciusshrykeTubularLuggageShadowenLaOsKetBraCaulk Bite 6El Mucho
  • DeciusDecius Registered User regular
    Personal opinion and conjecture ahead.

    It doesn't help that Trudeau's handling of SNC-Lavalin has been kinda crap, and the Liberals in general have been sloppy. Regardless of the actual facts of the "scandal," the optics haven't been good. I voted Liberal, and typically align along that line, but the lustre of the young Trudeau is wearing off. His celebrity status can no longer offset his lack of political acumen.

    A leadership race in an election year is a bad thing, but I think the Liberals are going to have an uphill battle with their incumbent.

    camo_sig2.png
    I never finish anyth
    CaedwyrArcticLancerDescendant XKetBraSteelhawkAl_watRichyCanadianWolverine
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I am honestly pretty concerned these days that the left hasn't been able to recognize the threat on the right enough to come together and we'll have a Conservative PM.
    There are literally points in this thread where people have attacked one another for not being "left" enough. I don't know how you could be even remotely surprised that on a disconnected national level the same thing happens. How completely unappealing all available options are at the moment certainly does not help people unite under a particular banner.

    I was randomly thinking this morning that - minus how completely stupid the handling has been with SNC - this sort of situation is exactly the ideal for the liberals not having had to go through on voter reform. They're still going to be "as close as it gets to less bad", no matter how unappealing they are. :|

    ArcticLancer on
    ApogeeDescendant XSteelhawkRichy
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I am honestly pretty concerned these days that the left hasn't been able to recognize the threat on the right enough to come together and we'll have a Conservative PM.
    There are literally points in this thread where people have attacked one another for not being "left" enough. I don't know how you could be even remotely surprised that on a disconnected national level the same thing happens. How completely unappealing all available options are at the moment certainly does not help people unite under a particular banner.

    I was randomly thinking this morning that - minus how completely stupid the handling has been with SNC - this sort of situation is exactly the ideal for the liberals not having had to go through on voter reform. They're still going to be "as close as it gets to less bad", no matter how unappealing they are. :|

    It's never stopped the right from uniting.

    Everything to the centre and left is, in my experience, perpetually in a state of being unsupportive of the idea that it might be necessary to just come together to beat the right.

    monikerAridholShadowenGnome-InterruptusFencingsaxRichy
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    It's a decent idea to work with when discussing with political junkies, but it also ignores how the populace votes. I figure that if you want to win, you need to figure out how to convince the populace to vote for you and the argument of "the other guy is worse" tends to result in reduced turnout on the left. The left seems to turn out in more numbers when people want to vote for someone who is making a more positive argument for why you should vote for them and their plans.

    Caedwyr on
    RichyCanadianWolverine
  • ArcticLancerArcticLancer Best served chilled. Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I am honestly pretty concerned these days that the left hasn't been able to recognize the threat on the right enough to come together and we'll have a Conservative PM.
    There are literally points in this thread where people have attacked one another for not being "left" enough. I don't know how you could be even remotely surprised that on a disconnected national level the same thing happens. How completely unappealing all available options are at the moment certainly does not help people unite under a particular banner.

    I was randomly thinking this morning that - minus how completely stupid the handling has been with SNC - this sort of situation is exactly the ideal for the liberals not having had to go through on voter reform. They're still going to be "as close as it gets to less bad", no matter how unappealing they are. :|

    It's never stopped the right from uniting.

    Everything to the centre and left is, in my experience, perpetually in a state of being unsupportive of the idea that it might be necessary to just come together to beat the right.
    Probably because it doesn't actually accomplish anything more than beating the other guy. For the right, that's good enough. They want shit to stay the same. Is it good enough for the left to maintain the status quo?

    And I'm not asking you to talk about How Much Worse The Right Is (tm) - I'm fully aware of how much I don't want the CPC to get a majority. But it's not like saying, "Hey Fantasy Leftist Party, we're going to hand you a free ticket each year so please feel compelled to act in our collective best interest, okay?" will lead to good places either.

    Caedwyr
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    shryke wrote: »
    Aridhol wrote: »
    I am honestly pretty concerned these days that the left hasn't been able to recognize the threat on the right enough to come together and we'll have a Conservative PM.
    There are literally points in this thread where people have attacked one another for not being "left" enough. I don't know how you could be even remotely surprised that on a disconnected national level the same thing happens. How completely unappealing all available options are at the moment certainly does not help people unite under a particular banner.

    I was randomly thinking this morning that - minus how completely stupid the handling has been with SNC - this sort of situation is exactly the ideal for the liberals not having had to go through on voter reform. They're still going to be "as close as it gets to less bad", no matter how unappealing they are. :|

    It's never stopped the right from uniting.

    Everything to the centre and left is, in my experience, perpetually in a state of being unsupportive of the idea that it might be necessary to just come together to beat the right.
    Probably because it doesn't actually accomplish anything more than beating the other guy. For the right, that's good enough. They want shit to stay the same. Is it good enough for the left to maintain the status quo?

    And I'm not asking you to talk about How Much Worse The Right Is (tm) - I'm fully aware of how much I don't want the CPC to get a majority. But it's not like saying, "Hey Fantasy Leftist Party, we're going to hand you a free ticket each year so please feel compelled to act in our collective best interest, okay?" will lead to good places either.

    It accomplishes a lot other then that. We see it every time we get centre or left or centre-left governance. Stuff beyond maintaining the status quo happens. (eg - we just legalized weed) It's just that it doesn't matter. It's not enough or it's not right or fuck those other guys or whatever the excuse is, there's always an excuse to stay home, to stab the guy right next to you, to squabble. etc while the right just shrugs and figures better our guy then theirs.

    shryke on
    Aridholmoniker
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It's a decent idea to work with when discussing with political junkies, but it also ignores how the populace votes. I figure that if you want to win, you need to figure out how to convince the populace to vote for you and the argument of "the other guy is worse" tends to result in reduced turnout on the left. The left seems to turn out in more numbers when people want to vote for someone who is making a more positive argument for why you should vote for them and their plans.

    If you wanna talk about how the average voter thinks and votes then your options don't need to be tethered to reality and half of what you are doing is riding the random vagaries of public opinion based on various things.

    And the tendency of the left to stay home unless someone is firing them up for some thing or other is rather the point of the whole comment.

  • finnithfinnith TorontoRegistered User regular
    I wonder if wrt advertising that they succesfully legalized weed is not being advertised by the Liberals b/c a) they're incompetent/don't know how b) polling has indicated that it's not something that would move votes/moderate Canadians are "proud" of.

    Bnet: CavilatRest#1874
    Steam: CavilatRest
  • Descendant XDescendant X Hank Facepunch Registered User regular
    edited April 17
    I was thinking of legalization this morning. What do you folks think the over/under is on Scheer binning legalization if the CPC win a majority in the next election?

    Descendant X on
    Something used to be here. It's gone now.
  • darkmayodarkmayo Registered User regular
    I was thinking of legalization this morning. What do you folks think the over/under is on Scheer binning legalization of the CPC win a majority in the next election?

    Just have to take a look at who owns the dispensaries and who is profiting. Not that I have any proof but I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of them are run by rich conservatives. You don't see an op like that telegraphed from a mile while very often, and the only thing more important than morals is cold hard cash for those types.

    Gnome-InterruptusDisco11
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    Zero chance pot becomes illegal again.

    Al_watKetBraArcticLancermonikerDisco11AegisCaulk Bite 6
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    There's a non-zero (but negligible) chance that some hypothetical Conservative government might allow a vote on making pot illegal again. However, much like with abortion, the Tories know that such a large majority is in favour of keeping it legal that trying to roll things back would lead to near annihilation in the subsequent election.

    Aridholshryke
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    A significant number of Harper-ite ministers hold positions in pot companies because they are going to make a ridiculous amount of money

    Pot's staying legal short of an extreme religious right group coming to power, beyond even the social conservatism of Scheer's group

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • JeanJean Papa bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    KetBra wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Diorinix wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Diorinix wrote: »
    A few other big things to note with the AB election:

    - Voter turnout up from 2015 ~4.5% (to 55)
    - combined vote totals as a percent for former Wildrose and PC parties closely match total UCP total (~51% in 2015 vs ~53% this year)
    - NDP vote totals as a percent went down roughly 10%, from 44 to 35%
    - Alberta Party went up from 2% to 10%

    This province is less divided than ever... against progressive ideals. The NDP lost support, and the Alberta Party grew. The full conservative wing went nowhere, only consolidated their votes from 2 parties into 1.

    It's disheartening to realize that progress wasn't being made in my home. I'm gonna have to find a way to unplug for a while.

    So sounds like some combination of the right coming out and the left staying home. Which doesn't seem that surprising.

    Total turnout up. Conservative totals steady. NDP totals down by the same amount the centrist party went up.

    I disagree with your analysis.

    It looks to me like the UCP saw a large surge, even above 2015's Wildrose+PC totals. NDP are down a bit. Alberta Party is up a lot more then the NDP are down. And afaik we don't have the totals in yet. It's not clear that your attempt to link AP gains to NDP losses is entirely true here.

    The large seat loss and the differences in the popular vote totals compared to last election suggest that the NDP won a lot marginal races last time and a small dip in their support combined with a massive surge for conservatives flipped a ton of ridings.

    2015's results are kind of a bad benchmark to compare to, because they represented an electorate which was very dissatisfied with its government, and was massively in flux. Pretty much everyone who voted NDP in 2015 was voting NDP for the first time, so characterising them as a reliable base is a bit ahistorical.

    If you instead compare with the 2012 election, you see some that the NDP vopte maps pretty well to the Liberal + NDP vote from that election, or is a bit down from the combined Liberal + NDP vote from 2008. Which makes sense, as the government had some pretty shitty economic fundamentals to deal with.

    Wasn't there a significant amount of strategic voting for Redford from centre-left voters in order to prevent Wildrose from winning the election tough?

    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote: »
    It's a decent idea to work with when discussing with political junkies, but it also ignores how the populace votes. I figure that if you want to win, you need to figure out how to convince the populace to vote for you and the argument of "the other guy is worse" tends to result in reduced turnout on the left. The left seems to turn out in more numbers when people want to vote for someone who is making a more positive argument for why you should vote for them and their plans.

    There are studies (I don't have the links with me anymore) that show that optimism makes people more liberal and fear makes them more conservative. Transpose that in the electoral world, and it explains why "vote against the other guy" is a strategy that gave alt-right parties a solid and unshakable base, but is a failing move for left-wing parties. If Trudeau tries that this fall, he will lose hard.

    sig.gif
    CaedwyrShadowenGnome-Interruptus
Sign In or Register to comment.