Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On April 19 2019 00:50 JimmiC wrote: The fact for Alberta is we are actually not a Oil economy. We are a construction based on Oil projects economy. So we need expansion. We need to change our Royalty/tax structure or spend to Oil production levels because those actually have not dropped.
What is the difference? The money comes from oil to build new projects, drilling wells and all the components come from construction and manufacturing here, then they build offices, skyscrapers, everything. Then accounting firms, banks and other finance industries come to meet that demand. Calgary downtown offices are around 70-80% very closely tied to O&G.
Do you have numbers for spend to barrel of oil? I don't, but from work experience are highly doubt that.
Hmm, you think if we just maintain production, the royalties and taxes from all the companies, the employee salaries, etc. and just replacing depleted wells and such won't be able to sustain spending?
To me it almost seems like a income tax vs sales tax kind of thing, the government is getting their money one way or another. No question that ours is taxed less, so we need a pretty big industry to sustain big spending, unlike Norway, who can take a big chunk of the profits since they have nice oil and ease bringing to market.
I work for a general construction firm, which is a lot less boom and bust, our prices haven't changed, maybe the salaries for some have been a tad stagnant (especially if you consider the weakening of the CAD dollar). I spend a lot of time talking to the exec tenants, which 70% happen to be O&G based, and there's a lot happening, it's just being done more efficiently, without that 100% price premium of past projects. Again, that's just my personal vibe from what I see.
Scheer had his first policy-related speech. It seems the Conservatives thus far have few actual policy proposals other than a couple small token gestures, puffing their chests at China, and not being the Liberals.
The most interesting thing though, to me, was the Liberals' response:
In response to Scheer's speech Tuesday, Liberal MP and Quebec campaign co-chair Pablo Rodriguez said that Scheer cannot be trusted on foreign policy matters because he backed Brexit, the U.K.'s so-far unsuccessful attempt to leave the European Union. Rodriguez accused the Conservative leader of "inexplicably supporting economic chaos" through his support for Brexit and called his foreign policy proposals recklessness and divisive.
"After ten years of failed Conservative foreign policy, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government is restoring Canada's place in the world, including restoring and investing in Canada's military," the Montreal-area MP said. "Canadians don't want to go back to Stephen Harper's failed foreign policy, and that's all Andrew Scheer is offering."
I had a feeling they would be bringing up Scheer's support of Brexit, and figured at some point they would start bringing up the Harper, but I didn't think it would out of the gate like this. I think the Liberals' best chance is to bring up the Harper government and draw comparisons to Scheer. In my view, going on the offensive is a good thing for the Liberals to do if they want to have a chance. The Conservatives have shown to be much worse at messaging when on the defence than when attacking, so the Liberals should be exploiting this.
The Conservatives recently released an attack ad that tried to compare Trudeau to Trump, but I can't see that comparison working as well as they think it will if they keep proposing policy that is similar in many ways to the Trump (see Scheer's comments on Iran and Israel in the linked article). Policy like that would make it much easier for the Liberals to claim the Conservatives are trying to copy the Republicans and tie them to Trump. I also feel like their attempts to paint the Liberals as incredibly corrupt could backfire since they themselves have several scandals from when they were previously in charge that could be used to counter those claims.
However, if the last few CBC polls are anything to go by, the Liberals have an uphill battle if they want to hold onto power. Another interesting factor is that the Green Party is polling way higher than they have in the past. They're at 9.3% right now and only about 6-7 points behind the NDP at this point, and they are trending upward while the NDP has stayed relatively stagnant. They also just won a bi-election in BC.
Of course, as with last election, there could be massive swings in support before October hits. Last time around the NDP held upwards of 40% of support and appeared headed for a majority for a good chunk of the summer and then had among their worst elections ever.
With the current political winds favouring the fringe parties or ones that drift from the mainstream, the Greens are an alternative for disenfranchised Liberals and progressives done with Trudeau or the NDP. Then again, it is B.C. which has the reputation as the hippy province, so we'll see how well their singular message of climate change and environmentalism can resonate elsewhere.
On May 08 2019 05:41 JimmiC wrote: The NDP have a history of leaving provinces in a worse situation than before they got there
Bob Rae did a great job in Ontario.
lmao. He did a job. I can say he was forced to find a solution to the problem and he sort of did. He took control and made a decision and kind of drove the bus off a cliff, but at least he made a decision. Simultaneously he cost the NDP any chance they ever had at having power in Ontario while people who were alive at the time he was the premier are still voting. You might disagree with the vast majority of people in Ontario but let's not pretend that he's remembered as a great Premier, it's pretty much unanimous that the NDP screwed over tens of thousands of people and Bob Rae Days are one of the darkest times that current generations remember, which says a lot.
I will say in retrospect he might have been trying to give Ontario a better long term future, but any attempt to salvage this province was burned by McGuinty and Wynne so it's difficult to tell.
On May 08 2019 06:14 OmniEulogy wrote: Bob Rae Days are one of the darkest times that current generations remember, which says a lot.
my maternal grandmother was the lead rep for lab-techs/x-ray techs/radiology @ opseu. She was head of the laboratory at Mississauga hospital at the time. She may have been prez/leader for all non-nurses i'll have to clarify that with her. Anyhow , during those times. her comment is that it resulted in 0 job losses at hospitals. The small decrease in pay signalled to all hospital staff that they were in tough times and that being budget conscious was a top priority for every single employee at all hospitals. in her view and in the view of OPSEU's leadership Rae-Days were an excellent solution to tough economic times in Ontario.
Times were not that "dark" Rae-Days resulted in between a 2% and 6% pay cut and staved off layoffs. People lost 0.8 days of work per month.
The north america-wide 1990 recession hit Ontario particularly hard because of how much Ontario relied upon exports to the USA. Rae did a nice job navigating Ontario through some really tough times leaving Mike Harris with a very manageable debt load that Ontario ended up paying off. Bob Rae left Ontario in a good spot for Mike Harris to succeed.
On May 08 2019 06:20 JimmiC wrote: I'm also not very interested in Debating how a Premier did in Ont before you were even born.
you asked me how i old i was in a previous thread. i told you i am 31. i was born in 1987. i'm too lazy to dig it up.. its in the NFL thread about Al Davis. Anyhow, when you get the basic facts incorrect its hard to take seriously the rest of your post that expands on those incorrect comments.
On May 08 2019 07:06 JimmiC wrote: I'm sorry you said you were not born when you were, and were super interested and informed advanced toddler. My mistake. Have a good evening.
umm no, i read books and listen to my parents and grandparents. Also, when things are good in a province for the 10 years after a Premier leaves office part of the credit goes to them. Things in Ontario were good from 1995 to 2005. We can go through that comment and verify if objectively if you wish.
On May 08 2019 06:20 JimmiC wrote: Usually people who do a great job get re-elected.
Mike Harris ran a great campaign. The common sense revolution was a great campaign slogan.
The fact Bob Rae even got elected in 1990 shows you how good the guy is. He is still the only leader to win an election for the provincial NDP in the very right wing Ontario.
On May 08 2019 07:06 JimmiC wrote: Rae doing a great job in Ont is your opinion not a fact. It is fine you think that way but that does not make it true, or false for that matter.
this also applies to your original generalization.
On May 08 2019 05:41 JimmiC wrote: The NDP have a history of leaving provinces in a worse situation than before they got there
you've got a lot of work to do to back that up.
i'm more than prepared to back up my much more focused comment on Rae's performance from 1990 to 1995. I can start with his fiscal responsibility... something few NDPers can lay claim.
On May 08 2019 06:01 PhoenixVoid wrote: With the current political winds favouring the fringe parties or ones that drift from the mainstream, the Greens are an alternative for disenfranchised Liberals and progressives done with Trudeau or the NDP. Then again, it is B.C. which has the reputation as the hippy province, so we'll see how well their singular message of climate change and environmentalism can resonate elsewhere.
Yeah, BC does sometimes tend to be an outlier when it comes to voting preferences. In a previous bi-election, the PPC candidate in one district got something like 11%, which was significantly higher than any other PPC result in any bi-elections so far. The Green Party also tends to do quite well, even if they don't win all that often. Slightly more fringe parties just seem to do better in BC, at least from what I've noticed.
I do agree that the Green Party is becoming a strong alternative. In a perfect world, they'd have my vote, but it will all depend on who in my riding has the best chance of beating the Conservatives. I live in a province that votes overwhelmingly Conservative, but in cities it is always much closer. Last time around the Conservative candidate won in my district, but only by a couple thousand votes while the Liberals and NDP split and both had roughly the same number of votes. Stopping the Conservatives from winning is my biggest concern right now. I have a feeling ABC will continue to be a thing this election, which is unfortunate, because I think it prevents people from sometimes voting for the party that best represents their views, but at the same time is seems necessary currently because of how many centre, centre-left, and left-leaning parties there are.
On May 08 2019 05:13 Ben... wrote: The Conservatives recently released an attack ad that tried to compare Trudeau to Trump, but I can't see that comparison working as well as they think it will if they keep proposing policy...
is this the ad to which you are referring?
i think the conservatives' strategy here is to label "the other guy" as "Trump" as early on as possible. This way if the Liberals try to call Scheer "just like Trump"... it won't be as effective. The "Trump" card will have already been played and the audience will be bored of it.
I wonder who Hazel Mccallion will back in this election? Last election she endorsed Trudeau.
Yeah, BC does sometimes tend to be an outlier when it comes to voting preferences.
I like to say we're contrarians. Case in point- my riding (as much as it changed) fairly consistently votes for whoever is out of power.
Since WWI, I think my riding has put in members of parliament into government seven times. (Dief, Trudeau Sr, and Harper) Otherwise, it's a whole lot of Independent, CCF, and NDP voting, then we switched to Reform and Alliance and Conservative for a bit- just long enough to get a taste of government, and then we went back to voting for NDP.
" its been a long time.. its been a long lonely, lonely, lonely time ..."
I'm starting to see the level of opportunity in Southern Ontario that existed pre-2009. Now, we have some objective measurements of the improved level of economic opportunity.
nice move by the Feds. So far its all talk. At least they are talking. “Meaningful but reasoned enforcement is required to ensure that there are real consequences when the law is not followed.”
Keep in mind the spin on the facts presented in these articles is coming from a well known extremely pro-liberal newspaper. However, the underlying facts are good.
EPT
