The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


It's gradually happening. Why not lead the fanfare?

And Alberta's prosperity isn't really threatened. The cost of the Green Shift to Alberta would be roughly equivalent to its current surplus - on its fourth year. This would leave you with 4 years to adapt.

Again - incredibly low taxes, no debt, and a balanced budget. Even with the Green Shift, you'd be by far the richest province in the federation.

Once again, what the ****?

Why are you looking at provincial coffers and assuming those are relevant at all here?

The fact is right now some companies are leaving Alberta because it's too expensive for their blood. This tax would further increase their expense, somewhat dramatically and to the tune of billions of dollars. Not the province's expense, the expense of the BUSINESSES driving Alberta's economy. The province of Alberta doesn't pay those taxes, the businesses do. The cost of extracting oil from Alberta will become largely uncompetitive in the global economy, resulting in fleeing foreign investment -- perhaps just like the NEP from the early 80s. This is what the Liberals, and clearly youself, don't seem to be able to comprehend.

It's not a simple matter of "oh, Alberta provincially has lots of money, they can handle it". It's a matter of driving away business by making Alberta too expensive to develop in compared to other projects, particularly if ANWAR and other resources start becoming tapped in the near future. Loss of business results in massive losses in jobs, which result in a devastated economy. Again, look at the NEP's results. It's not unlikely that the green shift will do the same thing to Alberta.

And at that point, all of the money in the world in provincial coffers and no debt means absolutely nothing to the throngs of unemployed and provincial revenues drying up. Oh, and at the same time Alberta would be expected to spend ~$20B to build nuclear power in Alberta, something which will become completely unaffordable in Alberta when the economy comes to a screaching halt.

There's far more variables in this than you can ever imagine. It's not the province losing money, it's the residents of Alberta. They'll lose from all directions: it'll cost more for them to heat their homes, to use electricity, to drive anywhere; and at the same time the economy will slow down as businesses need to pay billions more to the federal government to fund tax cuts for people largely in Quebec and Ontario.

It's a recipe for disaster. It's why Harper said the Green Shift threatens national unity, there's a very good chance it'll end up like the NEP in Alberta and if that's the case, you can seriously kiss Alberta goodbye. Once was devastating enough, twice in 30 years is just patently absurd and cruel. Harper's not beating this drum too hard because he doesn't want to be associated with Alberta separatists, but it's what many people in Alberta are increasingly thinking.

Your call for Alberta to "sacrifice" was perhaps one of the most ignorant and heartless things you could say. I'm still fuming about that.

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Wezil
That to me is the futility of the whole effort. We are arguing about how to go about doing something that at the end of it all won't make a spec of difference so long as some nations won't (and will never) join in.

I wouldn't make "a spec of difference" whether we do it or not even if others WERE joining in.

That's always the case when you're a small part of a whole.
We could use that line of thought to justify doing nothing whatever the others were doing really. Just like, using the same logic, you can justify fraud, stealing or anything since you're just one person, and it won't make a spec of difference if you fraud or not.


While everyone agrees that it'd be nice if we could get others to join in, some people believe that we should do what we can in any case.

Originally posted by Wezil
Significant impacts to change our environment will be insignificant on the global level.

Again, this is true whether the "largest emitters" sign on or not. What does one have to do with the other?

You could still argue the same (what WE do has little impact) if the big shots had signed on.

[CrONoS]

Yes indeed, "spoiled children" earning on average 18k$ a year.

Government, doesn't have to pay for the choice (or bad) choice of an individual. Working in the "entertainment industry" is an individual choice. If his earning is not high enough; this is because socially, we don't value his work too high.

There is correlation in Canada, more government spend money on culture, less than individual will spend his own money on culture.

And I'm pretty sure, that, as an individual, I'm better than the government to know which art project is better than another one.

If artists do not represent our culture, who does? Mechanics? Lawyers?

I don't know what represent our culture or our identity but the artists (Which I like prefer to call them entertainers) are not representing the Quebec culture. People, individuals are representing the Quebec culture. It could be scientific, artist, writer, philosophers, politicians, social workers, a community... But it's a lie, that the 30-40M$ of culture subsidy will destroy our culture.

if you want to help the culture; make the nation more wealthy.

Wow, people in a gala made by artists for the artistic community complained about the cuts.

Hey that's what I said; the media have flooded us of informations that Harper is.... a very dangerous and evil guy. The medias industry ( excepting some right wing radio station... and MAYBE TQS.) which are really close to the cultural industry just flooded us with this kind of information.

It's normal, people are always fighting for their interest; but I call it propaganda, when it's mostly based on misinformation, lie, exaggeration, etc..

It's the other way around. Suppressing 40m$ of help (when you're running a surplus of several billions) to a group that makes on average 18k$/year is disproportionate.

This is another debates. But who cares if they make 18k/years, it's their choice? If they were appreciated by the public, they would have made a lot more money.

If I generalize, I would say that the modern artists separated itself from the main man, and now the middle class don't want t pay for them.

Just to be clear; it's like when serialism began in classical music. The middle man doesn't like it, because it's a music for specialist.

It's a generalization... But the fact that they don't make enough money is the indication, that nobody want to pay for their "art".

Which, sadly for you, is true. Toning down his discourse in order to get electable doesn't change his personal background, history, and fundamental beliefs.

Which is true that he toned down his fundamental belief; but I tought that's what politics is based on. The preference of the median voter.

But I see your point; but calling him Bush, is plainly stupid and fundamentally demagogic.

And he was mainly a conservatives libertarian. (Fiscal conservatives)

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme


I wouldn't make "a spec of difference" whether we do it or not even if others WERE joining in.

That's always the case when you're a small part of a whole.
We could use that line of thought to justify doing nothing whatever the others were doing really. Just like, using the same logic, you can justify fraud, stealing or anything since you're just one person, and it won't make a spec of difference if you fraud or not.


While everyone agrees that it'd be nice if we could get others to join in, some people believe that we should do what we can in any case.



Again, this is true whether the "largest emitters" sign on or not. What does one have to do with the other?

You could still argue the same (what WE do has little impact) if the big shots had signed on.

No actually, it's more like the theft laws are designed to apply to some and not all. It's absurd to obey a prohibition that costs you when others are given a free pass.

If you want me to be convinced to your way of thinking I will need to hear serious noise at the political level (in Canada and elsewhere) about trade penalties and sanctions against those not interested in joining the effort. Are we going to make these threats against China? Can we even afford to make these threats?

[Asher]

CrONoS

A lot of people comparing Harper to Bush seem to forget Harper started as a Liberal. He then moved to Progressive Conservatives, and was only in Reform/CA because strategically that's what was needed at the time.

He's not as far right as the Liberal and NDP supporters want people to believe.

It was actually the NEP that made him switch from Liberal to Conservative. The same is true for many, many people in Alberta. The Green Shift would likely have the same effect on a new generation.

[Asher]

http://www.thestar.com/federalelection/article/512120

Layton says Harper will destroy the economy if elected. That kills me!

Layton asserts that providing tax cuts to corporations is what caused the "mess" in the US.

The real sad part is it indicates just how ****ing clueless Layton is about how the economy works, but also that people will believe him...

[Victor Galis]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/story/2008/10/05/poll-dion.html

Conservative support slipping, poll suggests
Last Updated: Sunday, October 5, 2008 | 12:45 PM ET Comments496Recommend222
CBC News
Voter support for the Conservative party has fallen a bit while that of the Liberals remains stable, the four-day running poll released by Harris/Decima on Sunday suggests.

The results are "the first bit of good news for the Liberals in a while," Harris/Decima president Bruce Anderson said in a commentary.

Percentage of respondents supporting each party
Party Oct. 1-4 Sept. 23-26 Sept. 17-20
Conservative 34 38 39
Liberal 24 23 23
NDP 20 19 17
Green 13 9 11
Bloc 8 9 8
Source: Canadian Press, Harris/Decima polls
The Conservatives will need to reverse the momentum suggested by the poll if they are to win a majority, Anderson said.

The Conservatives' national support is 34 per cent, a low since the campaign began, and the figure "masks a sharper deterioration in seat-rich Central Canada," he said.

The Liberals are at 24 per cent, NDP at 20, Green party at 13 and Bloc Québécois at eight.

The poll also suggests that leadership ratings of Liberal Stéphane Dion and Conservative Stephen Harper are converging, another positive for the Liberals, Anderson said.

Harper's leadership rating is sinking, and Dion's rising, although the Liberal is still last among the five leaders.

The NDP's Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe of the Bloc are far in front, while the Green Leader Elizabeth May is in third place and has risen sharply.

The national figures were based on the question: "If a federal election were held tomorrow, who do you think you would be voting for in your area?" It then lists the parties.

The average sample was 1,285, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Although it looks like the Greens are getting the extra votes that the Conservatives are losing .

[notyoueither]

Which is your dog, Victor?

[Asher]

He's a Liberal whore.

I like how the conservatives "slip" by 1 vs the latest poll (well within the margin of error) and it's a story.

The real story is how the NDP are within spitting distance of defeating the Liberals...

[notyoueither]

That's what I'm wondering. If the NDP are close enough, and their vote do not desert back to the Liberals, what happens? Compound this by the Greens horning in.

How low can we see a majority in total vote?

[Asher]

edit: wrong thread

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Asher
He's a Liberal whore.

I like how the conservatives "slip" by 1 vs the latest poll (well within the margin of error) and it's a story.

The real story is how the NDP are within spitting distance of defeating the Liberals...

The columns didn't align well but the change is 38% -> 34%. That's more than 1 Still within the margin of error technically, but barely.

Which is your dog, Victor?

I'm a card-carrying Liberal. As an anti-separatist Quebecker, there's not a whole lot of choice . I'm not super thrilled with the current leadership/platform, but barring some sort of miracle, I don't really see myself voting for the crazy lefties or Harper.

I'm also happier with the Liberals than with either American party.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


The columns didn't align well but the change is 38% -> 34%. That's more than 1 Still within the margin of error technically, but barely.

It was 35% the last polls I saw on Friday.

[Wezil]

The current Nanos numbers (the most accurate pollster in the past two elections btw) has it 34% to 30% for the Cons.

This is the most recent poll.

[Asher]

34% to 30%?

Is it one or the other?