Harper: "The politics of ruthlessness"

[Fake Boris]

Bla bla bla, I'm like my brother 10 years ago, just more twit.

[Asher]

Asher is rambling. He is putting aside that most of Alberta's investments into conventional crude had been done in the 70s; the early 80s were the burst of a bubble. Alberta's second boom happened around 2000, when oil sands became commercially viable again.

You seriously have no ****ing idea what you're talking about. The early 80s were the highest oil prices in history at the time. The "bubble" burst in 1986. During the NEP, there were record oil prices. It was after the NEP (or at the very end) that the bubble burst.

You are either tremendously ignorant or being intentionally deceitful when you blame the global oil market for the ridiculous hardships Alberta had in the NEP era. Again, record high oil prices during the NEP -- not ridiculously low prices like you keep saying.

The NEP did hurt Alberta, but it's a factor amongst others. And he is persisting on the delusion that Canada is a Quebec/Ontario conspiracy against the Prairies, yeah, sure.

There are quotes from the Liberal cabinet at the time which essentially stated as such. The goal was to "federalize" the regional revenues. Which is a nice way of saying wealth redistribution. Which is a nice way of saying transferring money from Alberta to Ontario/Quebec.

[Asher]

The point is that a Canadian with aspirations to high-level civil service should learn French.

No.

French is dead. Get over it.

You guys already learn the superior language. Just admit it so we can save our time and money.

[Fake Boris]

Asher, it was obvious that 1980 was a peak; smart investors wanted to wait and see the trend before committing to more expensive sources (like those of Alberta). Also 1980 was a recession, and Alberta was just out of 10 years of overheating 7-10% growth. At some point, yeah, the crash was to be harder than Toronto's or Montreal's. The NEP furthered it, but did not cause it.

Also, learn to make the difference between the Federal Kabbala and the actual Canadians voting them in.

[Asher]

Asher, it was obvious that 1980 was a peak; smart investors wanted to wait and see the trend before committing to more expensive sources (like those of Alberta). Also 1980 was a recession, and Alberta was just out of 10 years of overheating 7-10% growth.

I cannot argue with you anymore. You are too stupid to live.

WTF do you even get that Alberta is "expensive" in the 80s? Oil sands is expensive, but 99% of oil in the 80s was conventional and no more expensive than elsewhere. Jesus christ.

1980 may've been a peak technically, but the prices were sustained at a high levels for the duration of the NEP. It is a blatant lie to state that oil prices are what hurt Alberta during the NEP. The EXACT OPPOSITE is the case.

Oil prices were very high and Alberta was forced to sell it at way below market value to Quebec and Ontario. This is on top of the federal government driving away foreign investment, which dramatically increased the unemployment rate which dramatically increased the bankruptcy rate which dramatically increased the poverty rate.

[Fake Boris]

I understand your point that oil prices were at a historical high; I reject the idea that this would necessarily would have avoided a bubble burst. The economy is more complex than just oil prices.

In the 70s, oil was cheap and Alberta grew 7-10%; right now it's much more expensive in real dollars, but you've been doing 3-4%. Get over it.

[Asher]

I understand your point that oil prices were at a historical high; I reject the idea that this would necessarily would have avoided a bubble burst.

What the ****?

Alberta was ****ed for the DURATION of the NEP. NOT when the bubble burst. You act like everything was awesome until 1986 when oil prices collapsed. The point is Alberta was ****ed during historically high oil prices because of the NEP, then double-****ed when the NEP ended and global oil prices tanked.

In the 70s, oil was cheap and Alberta grew 7-10%; right now it's much more expensive in real dollars, but you've been doing 3-4%. Get over it.

WTF are you even talking about? 7-10% of a smaller amount is way less than 3-4% of a massive amount. WHY IS THIS EVEN RELEVANT?

[giblets]

Why should they have to learn French? French is a largely useless language. The lingua franca is dead. The language of the world is english. Welcome to the 20th and 21st centuries.

Yeah, and Canadians should stop pretending they aren't Americans

[Wezil]

Because citizens and lawyers have a constitutional right to plead in either language, you moron.

And they still can.

We have the ability to translate languages. If you think a bilingual judge sitting on the SCC isn't having materials translated into their mother tongue (be it English or French) then you are sadly mistaken. A person's second language will rarely be as strong as their first and I assure you, SCC justices aren't just winging it hoping they understood.

A bilingual requirement simply reduces the available talent pool of jurists without improving the level of justice.

[Wezil]

Btw, the Quebec vs Alberta *****fest is ****ing priceless.

Better than bum fights for pure entertainment value.

[Hauldren Collider]

Off topic, but when are you posting the 2012 dead pool signup, Wezil?

[Wezil]

I'm not.

My Poly sentence ends with the conclusion of the 2011 pool.

[Hauldren Collider]

[Wezil]

Interest in the thread and forum is waning.

This year I convinced two former posters to submit teams but they haven't made an appearance in the thread yet. They no longer enjoy the site so they don't come by. I convinced a friend to sign up and submit a team but he longer comes around either.

I don't know how many regular Poly posters in the pool are no longer around but I suspect next year's pool will be a smaller affair.

[notyoueither]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/the-death-of-the-laurentian-consensus-and-what-it-says-about-canada/article2266368/

The death of the Laurentian consensus and what it says about Canada
John Ibbitson | Columnist profile | E-mail
Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Published Friday, Dec. 09, 2011 4:58PM EST
Last updated Friday, Dec. 09, 2011 5:42PM EST


On its face, the federal election of May 2 didn’t seem all that important. Should Stephen Harper be given a majority government or held to a minority? What jet fighter should we buy? Where should the corporate tax rate be set?

And yet I believe the election was one of the most significant in Canada’s history, because it signalled the eclipse of what I call the Laurentian consensus.

From Confederation until quite recently, the direction of this country was determined by the elites in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and other cities along the St. Lawrence River or its watershed.

On all of the great issues of the day, the Laurentian elites debated among themselves, reached a consensus and implemented that consensus. In short, they governed the country.

And they governed it well. The National Policy of high tariffs provided a decent wage for millions of workers. The Laurentianists guided this country through two wars. They created the national social security system that many Canadians still consider a defining national value. They navigated the shoals of Quebec separatism, and brought home a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is an example to the world.

Most importantly, they promoted an open-door immigration policy.

The result is the world’s first post-national state: the urban, polyglot, intensely creative country that we live in, and celebrate, today.

But one of the dangers of any consensus is that reality can evolve out from underneath it. When shared belief parts company with facts on the ground, inevitably there is confusion, even a sense of anger and betrayal. We see this in the way the Laurentian elites react to the Harper government: They don’t simply oppose this prime minister – they consider him illegitimate.

For much of this country’s history, the federal government has looked upon the Western provinces as semi-colonial possessions. But in recent decades, the West has profoundly changed. The oil sands, the rise of China and other Pacific and Asian tigers, shifting economic ties, shifting patterns of immigration and interprovincial migration have made all four Western provinces more affluent and more Pacific-oriented.

The Laurentian elites never really understood the importance of these shifts, and the Liberal Party, which most closely reflected the Laurentian world view, preferred to concentrate on winning votes in Central Canada with a message of protecting the environment and advancing social programs through modestly higher taxes.

But on May 2, stressed voters opted for the Western-based Conservative message of lower taxes, law and order, and jobs, jobs, jobs.

Immigrant Canadians, mostly of Asian background, along with other middle-class suburban, exurban and rural Ontario voters, allied themselves with Western Canada, forging a new Pacific-centric conservative coalition – shattering, in the process, the political influence of the Laurentian consensus.

Excluded from power, the Laurentian elites rage against this new normal, fearing that the Conservatives are about to dismantle everything they have achieved. They aren’t. Citizens in Edmonton are no less committed than citizens in Toronto to preserving a universal public health-care system. And the conservative coalition accepts, perhaps reluctantly, that the nation is largely of one mind on gay marriage, the right to abortion, and a prohibition on capital punishment.

But that does not mean there are no differences between the old guard and the new. The conservative coalition is low-tax, anti-regulation, environmentally skeptical, pro-military.

The conservative coalition may itself one day implode. But whatever replaces it must take into account a powerful new demographic and political reality. The West wanted in. Now, it’s in charge.

If the Laurentian consensus wants to govern again, then it must understand who rejected it and why. The old assumptions will not hold in this new century. The pendulum will swing again, but it will never return to exactly where it was.

Those who simply wait for the universe to go back to unfolding as it should could wait a very long time.

This was adapted from a speech John Ibbitson gave in Toronto this week. The full lecture, co-produced by the Literary Review of Canada and TVOntario, will air on TVO’s Big Ideas on Saturday and Sunday at 5 p.m. Also available at tvo.org/bigideas.