CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

jfood posted:

Protectorate of Kwan: poo poo representation, but now my riding is 100% ghost free!

Speaking of the Protectorate of Kwan, the Liberals had their best showing since 2000 in Van East.

code:

2015 Results
NDP			Jenny Kwan	29,316	49.9 %
Conservative		James Low	6,322	10.8 %
Liberal			Edward Wong	16,532	28.2 %
Green Party		Wes Regan	5,395	9.2 %

2011 Results
NDP			Libby Davies	27,794	62.83%
Conservative		Irene Yatco	8,361	18.90%
Liberal			Roma Ahi	4,382	9.91%	
Green			Douglas Roy	3,383	7.65%

I wonder how much of that was from JT popularity and how much was from general demographic change toward the Liberals? The area is changing quite a bit, with West siders selling their houses and moving East, and Mount Pleasant being less of a centre for 20 something hipsters and more for 30 something silicon valley types.

The Liberals have never really tried in this riding, usually going with no name candidates that barely campaign. It'd be interesting to see what the results of this riding would have been had the Liberals put forward a star candidate. I wonder if they will next time.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 27, 2015

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 17:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:37

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Cultural Imperial posted:

Look at this guy thinking mt pleasant is full of ~silicon valley types~

Ok let's not give Hootsuite too much credit. The area is filling up with yuppies.

Main 2nd through 7th is steadily transforming from auto body shops into condos. The people that are buying and living in those aren't baristas and artists.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2015 20:30

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Terebus posted:

I live in downtown and I think it's a bad idea to tear down the viaducts. I don't think the replacement will handle the traffic and they'll just use the area to build more condos so I'm not sure how that's beneficial. They are an eyesore though. I think city council paid for a before/after traffic assessment but I'm not sure how much I trust that. What's the benefit to tearing the viaducts down?

The viaduct teardown coupled with the hospital moving outside of downtown Vancouver is going to make it pretty hilarious for when ambulances need to get anywhere near the Stanley Park or English bay areas.

The benefit is it will create residences for an estimated 2500 people. Add onto that all the amenities, restaurants, and retail that come along with new building development. Removing the viaducts opens up the potential for a whole new neighbourhood where there is currently fenced off police impound lots, parking and other unused spaces.

We all like to trash condo developers, but unless you're posting from a tent in Trout Lake Park you're currently benefiting from the fact that some developer at some point was allowed to build a condo/apartment/house.

# ¿ Oct 29, 2015 03:28

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

The Butcher posted:

Throwing a bone to the base for sure, but I suspect they also want to ensure they can leverage out a bigger slice of the pie for themselves.

There's some conspiracy theory speculation that the Liberals are trying to wedge open the door to Vancouver downtown freeway expansion. After all there's no transit expansion coming any time soon...

https://pricetags.wordpress.com/2015/11/03/minister-stone-on-the-viaducts-whats-really-going-on/

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 04:49

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

vyelkin posted:

Interesting that Joyce Murray didn't get a spot considering she's one of the most high profile Liberal women, came second in the leadership race, and was the party's defence critic. I would've loved to see her in democratic reform since she's on record as a big supporter of PR.

There's an eye to the next election here. Joyce Murray is in a safe Liberal seat, whereas Jody Wilson-Raybould is in Vancouver Granville, which was a three way battleground riding, and will likely be one next election as well. It makes sense to put Jody into cabinet so as to make her a more formidable incumbent. It helps that Jody has an amazing resume and is clearly deserving of a cabinet post.

Similarly Delta is a traditionally Conservative area, and that will be a seat the Liberals will want to try to hold. It makes sense to try to create a strong incumbent here as well.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2015 08:03

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

PT6A posted:

I took an Uber tonight just to spite my useless city government, and I have to say it was pretty great. Burn the taxi cartels to the ground in every city and town across this great country!

At some point I'm going to try out this new eCab thing as in Vancouver, without Uber or Lyft, this is the next best thing. Essentially it allows you to book cabs using your phone and have all the payment be handled automatically just like Uber, but it connects you with some nearby traditional cab. In Vancouver I believe all the cab companies are using it, so that ought to be a large pool.

I'm curious to see how good the experience will be, because it brings a great deal of the benefits of Uber without changing the existing system.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2015 22:12

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

As much as I've been disappointed by the taxi cartel's intransigence on changing any aspect of the status quo, I've been equally disappointed by Uber's stubborn refusal to compromise, work with municipal governments, and adjust in any way to conform to reasonable existing regulations. For example it is totally reasonable that some percentage of of a taxi cab fleet should be able to accommodate passengers with physical disabilities, but Uber is trying their hardest to get away from rules like this, asserting that they're not a taxi company but rather a lead generator etc etc.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2015 00:06

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Isentropy posted:

why does it seem like the vast majority of this set of dot-coms are attempts to run around regulations (e.g. FanDuel is totally not online gambling)

Because software engineers arrogantly believe they're smarter than everyone else in the room, and they can't be bothered to consider for a moment why government regulations exist, instead favouring their immediate assumption that government regulations were crafted by dunces for no reason.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2015 00:54

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

vyelkin posted:

She got completely crushed, too. Vaughan had over twice as many votes as her and won an outright majority (57%) of all votes cast.

What do you think were the main causes of this?

a) Demographic change in the riding
b) Riding redistribution changes
c) Candidate
d) Trudeau-mania
e) other?

In the past I was under the impression it was a clearly NDP leaning riding, but clearly that's changed.

# ¿ Nov 9, 2015 17:11

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

bunnyofdoom posted:

No tanker traffic on BC north coast

Oh weird I was completely under the impression this was already banned. After some searching around I guess there was a moratorium on oil and gas exploration, but not necessarily tanker traffic?

# ¿ Nov 17, 2015 04:45

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

bunnyofdoom posted:

Craft brewery pulling out of Alberta because of new ndp tax .

So close 5o canpol bingo

Seems like a convenient excuse to quietly back out of a market where your product is clearly substandard and can't compete.

# ¿ Nov 18, 2015 05:12

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Count Roland posted:

So not even auctioning off licensees, but only the right to apply. Lets add as many extra layers of bureaucracy as we can to this problem, then go to Montreal and get beer at the local dep.

Well, its better than less beer, I suppose.

Jesus I thought BC's liquor reforms were bad. They're nothing on the crazy stuff Ontario dreams up.

Hey opposition political parties, here's a free idea for your next campaign. Propose completely trashing the status quo of liquor management in favour of a dramatically more relaxed system like in almost every other part of the western world. I guarantee this populist promise will have strong appeal.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 04:44

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

PhilippAchtel posted:

I wonder now of it's not baked in. Let's say they liberalize the system further in four years time. What's to stop these retailers who bought special privilege suing the Ontario government for breach of contract or unlawful seizure of assets or something similar?

Just like the lease of Chicago's parking meters (or the sale of Hydro One, ahem) this is a policy decision people are going to have to live with for quite a long time before being able to do anything about it.

Something like this has to be the explanation for hoops set up by the BC government that have resulted in no real change to the status quo.

The BC government said that we'd have wine in super markets, but in the months since the policy was finally unveiled only a single grocery store in Metro Vancouver has a wine section. The best explanation I can find after some googling is that the BC government simply hasn't made new licenses available. I'm assuming this was done in the hope that big pocketed grocery stores would buy licenses given out earlier to private liquor stores, and thus avoiding the potential problem you mention.

As an aside the only wine that can be sold in grocery stores is BC wine and this has apparently caused a NAFTA complaint but I haven't heard too much about that recently.

The entire BC liquor reform thing has been a huge disaster. The Minister in charge is Susanne Anton, so I guess Vancouver dodged a bullet by not electing her Mayor when she ran a while back.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 17:49

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Dreylad posted:

I've noticed a ton of new breweries east of Toronto but 200 in Ontario alone? Holy crap that's a lot of craft breweries. I wonder how many the ~market~ can really support.

Was the big boom after 2007-2008? Because I don't really remember many before I moved to Quebec, but when I came back there seemed to be tons.

Going by saints gambit numbers BC has nearly twice the brewery density that Ontario has and I'd say there's still room in the market for more.

I think the room for growth is in more what Kreez is getting at though, which is small neighbourhood places that are defacto neighbourhood bars. Even in Vancouver neighbourhoods where there are multiple local breweries within blocks of one another I think you could still add more. The current places are at capacity and have lineups and doormen at this point. Part of this I think is due to limits on their size.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2015 18:02

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

smoke sumthin bitch posted:

also wont these carbon taxes hurt the poor the most?

In BC the tax is revenue neutral and wholly goes toward tax cuts. One of them is the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit, which I suppose is an attempt to offset whatever regressiveness there is in the Carbon Tax.

The articles about the Alberta Carbon Tax say it's going to be "Revenue Neutral" but it doesn't sound that way at all. In BC all of the tax is returned somehow via some sort of tax cut, but the bolded section below sounds like regular government spending.

quote:

� A portion will be spent on measures to reduce pollution, including clean-energy research, green infrastructure and public transit. Other money will help individuals and families �make ends meet,� and will help people working in affected coal facilities. Money will also help small businesses and First Nations transition to cleaner energy initiatives.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 02:51

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

PT6A posted:

See? Now I don't know to be pissed off because they're dumb as gently caress, or pissed off because they're a bunch of duplicitous, lying sons of whores.

The "Revenue Neutral" doublespeak is odd. Returning funds back to taxpayers is an idea I like, but I wouldn't have an issue with the government honestly saying that they're not going to totally follow BC, and will be reserving some amount of the tax revenue for government spending that will help move the province toward a post carbon future.

It makes some sense to use some Carbon Tax revenue for public transit infrastructure. The Carbon Tax is a way to encourage people to choose alternatives to the automobile oriented status quo of our transportation system. If there is no viable alternative to driving, then this tax is a great deal more frustrating for the tax payer.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 03:59

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

PT6A posted:

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm saying it would be dumb as gently caress to make it a revenue-neutral tax when there is literally no reason why that's a good idea. Absolutely those funds collected should be put toward things like public transit, instead of handed back out in the form of random other tax cuts. To clarify my earlier post: they're either criminally stupid for making it revenue-neutral, or a bunch of lying bastards for saying it's revenue-neutral when it's not. Either way, I hope they gently caress right off sooner rather than later.

Let's face it: the carbon tax is going to piss a lot of people off, and it's not going to overly friendly to a lot of businesses, even if it's the right thing to do, morally speaking. Why go through that and not come away with any more loving money? It's so completely loving stupid it hurts my brain to try and comprehend why they've done this, given it will not actually increase revenue when it very easily could be made to increase revenue.

The goal of a revenue neutral carbon tax policy is to incentivize people and businesses into changing their behaviour. Everyone gets tax cuts, but only those that limit their carbon use actually benefit at the end of the day. Others have their tax cut savings eaten up by carbon tax.

There is a moral duty to limit climate change but in addition to that the policy makes economic sense. It's a carrot and stick to try to get people, businesses and municipalities to become more efficient, and more competitive. Jurisdictions around the world are doing similar things, and Canadian businesses will be crushed if they do business as usual and never face pressure to adapt. Companies that can limit their carbon will be able to take advantage of tax cuts, and will be able to outcompete companies that can't.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2015 07:02

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

quote:

Andrew Coyne: Conservatives need rebirth before they can rebuild

The �Conservative century� would seem to have lasted less than a decade. Monday�s provincial election in Newfoundland brings to precisely zero the number of nominally Conservative governments in the country, following earlier defeats in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and of course the federal Conservatives� dismal showing in October.

Manitoba�s Conservatives may break the string in next year�s vote, if they can finally shed their habit of handing victory to the NDP, but elsewhere Conservatives, and conservatives, seem destined to spend some considerable time in the wilderness. Conservative parties in Atlantic Canada control barely a quarter of the seats in the region�s legislatures. Alberta�s Wildrose party did well to come back from the dead in this spring�s election, but will have to wait four years for a shot at power.

It isn�t just that there are no Conservative governments anywhere in the country, for the first time since 1943. There aren�t even any conservative ones. British Columbia�s Liberals and Saskatchewan�s Saskatchewan Party are sometimes identified as such, but they are more defined as not-NDP than anything else.

There is nothing resembling a conservative party in Quebec � the closest thing to it, the Coalition Avenir Qu�bec, holds just 22 of the province�s 125 seats � nor it seems in Ontario, where new leader Patrick Brown presents himself as an almost perfectly blank slate.

It would be too much to blame all this on Stephen Harper. However toxic the Conservative brand may have become federally, provincial politics has its own rhythms and concerns. Still, if the proposition, heard until quite lately, was that Harper had brought about a fundamental realignment in Canadian politics, that he had not only made the Conservatives contenders for power but discernibly moved Canadian public opinion in a conservative direction, there is scant evidence of it.

Quite the contrary. Only four previous governments in our history have gone down to worse defeats, measured either by the percentage loss in seats or popular vote. And while those previous defeats can be explained either by terrible economic conditions (1935, 1984, 1993) or profound social divisions (1921, the first election after the First World War and the conscription crisis), the Conservatives� present plight seems wholly self-inflicted.

Electoral defeat, moreover, is only the half of it. Conservatism is not just losing elections. As a political movement, it has � let us not mince words � ceased to offer a coherent or attractive alternative. On the most pressing questions of the day, from the environment to social justice, it is either unwilling or unable to present any serious answer to the prescriptions of the left, or even to offer much resistance.

At best it can hope to profit from the left�s miscues, but even in power it lacks the self-confidence to define an agenda, let alone pursue one. The nastiness of the Harper government may have been peculiar to it, but in its aimlessness and timidity, its unwillingness to invest political capital or confess to an ideology, it has its counterparts in conservative parties across the country � in sharp contrast to the robust self-confidence of the left.

The most striking example of this � and the most glaring missed opportunity � is on the environment, and global warming in particular. Conservatives could have, if they chose, dismissed the scientific consensus as alarmist, which would have been nervy but at least an argument. Or they could have accepted the science, and proposed their own, distinctly conservative solutions. In the event they did neither, publicly accepting the science but offering in response a melange of the most costly, regulatory-heavy policies this side of Charles de Gaulle.

The tragedy of this, from a conservative perspective, is that it has been the left that has taken up the space vacated by the right. A generation of environmentalists has grown up fully versed in the potential for market solutions to be applied to environmental problems; markets, they realize, are social institutions, like governments, each with its own proper sphere. Conservatives could have seized this opening, and run with it. If you like what the market can do for you in the environment, they could have said to voters, can we interest you in what it can do for your schools and health care?

Or, having lost the market-based initiative to the left, they could at least have criticized them for the inconsistencies of their approach. They could have insisted, for example, that any revenues from a carbon tax be used to cut other taxes. They could have protested that a carbon tax was the necessary and sufficient solution, that it should be used as a replacement for existing approaches, not a supplement. What, instead, do we hear from the right? �It�s a tax on everything.� They have, almost literally, nothing to say.

As indeed they do on too many other issues. It would be nice to see a principled conservative opposition to Liberal neo-Keynesianism, but having earlier embraced it themselves they can scarcely be credible. Conservatives might equally attack the Liberals for their propensity to subsidize corporations in pursuit of grandiose industrial strategies, but again that ship left long ago. They could insist on the need for sharp cuts in marginal tax rates as a spur to capital investment, or call for broader tax reform, had they done anything about either in their time in office.

Privatization. Deregulation. Opening up Canada�s cosseted telecoms, transportation and financial sectors to foreign competition, to say nothing of the farm price cartels. It has been a long time since Conservatives had anything to say about any of these. That the right needs to rebuild is self-evident. But it needs an intellectual rebirth first. It has, shall we say, the luxury of time before it next contends for power. It should use that time to figure out what to do with it.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 07:02

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

quote:

Liberal tax cut leaves most Canadians behind

NDP Tax Fairness proposal benefits the middle class and those working hard to join it

http://www.ndp.ca/news/liberal-tax-cut-leaves-most-canadians-behind

The Liberal government�s tax plan most benefits the wealthiest and leaves the majority behind. Canada�s progressive opposition has proposed an adjustment to improve the policy and extend the benefits to all middle class and working families.

Instead of applying the tax cut only to income in the second tax bracket, the NDP is calling for a cut to taxes on the first tax bracket and a boost to the Working Income Tax Benefit.

�The Liberal plan means zero benefit to two thirds of Canadians, while giving its biggest benefits to some of the wealthiest individuals in this country,� said NDP Finance critic Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette � T�miscouata � Les Basques). �As the progressive opposition, we are ready to fix the Liberal tax proposal so government action matches Liberal campaign rhetoric.�

Under the Liberal plan:

Median income earners making $31,320 get $0 in benefits.

Canadians earning between $11,000 and $45,000 would see $0 in benefits.

High-income earners making $210,000 would in fact get $270 in tax cuts.

Only people making more than $89,000 would receive the maximum benefit.

Under the NDP proposal:

Median income earners making $31,320 would get $200 in tax cuts.

People earning between $11,000 and $45,000 would see an average benefit of $172 in tax cuts.

High-income earners making $210,000 would pay $66 more in taxes rather than receiving the Liberal tax cut.

People making $44,701 will receive the maximum benefit of the policy.

�As it stands, the Liberal tax cut proposal leaves the bottom 67.5% of Canadian taxpayers behind while giving the largest benefits to people making between $89,000 and $200,000 per year,� said Caron. �That�s more of the old discredited trickle-down economics. We�ve offered a reasonable adjustment so that middle class and working families get the break they need.�

If they feel so strongly about this why didn't the NDP propose this during the election?

I'm assuming this proposal is uncosted, completely unviable and this press release is purely for PR purposes.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2015 22:02

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

quote:

...

Part of the issue is that individuals affected by the higher taxes can take steps to avoid paying them.

Don Carson, a chartered accountant with the accounting firm MNP who works with high net-worth clients, said this behavioural response is very real. He noted that while salaried employees cannot do much to avoid higher taxes, small-business owners can restructure their compensation to limit how much income they receive at the new rate.

�They�ll just leave the money inside the business,� he said, noting that small-business owners have taken similar actions in response to new provincial taxes on higher incomes.

...

I was arguing with a lawyer friend of mine the other day about the impact of the new tax raises on high income earners. His position was that it would destroy small businesses as owners wouldn't be able to support the business with less income, but that wasn't making any sense to me as the money needed to support the business should be staying in the business anyway, and people would if anything do the quoted section above, and leave more money in the business. It doesn't seem like a bad thing for more money to be staying in the business. Use that money to hire another lawyer and grow the law firm revenue even more.

It just seemed like we were talking past one another and I felt like I wasn't getting something?

# ¿ Dec 10, 2015 05:42

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

THC posted:

Yep im happy to keep him around as long as the alternative is NPA shitheads. Suburban motorist rage is the sweetest syrup.

COPE was pretty bad too at the end and a lot of them are now in charge of the BCNDP

Jesus christ what? :cripes:

I guess I'm joining the BC Liberals then?

COPE were pretty much total nutso cranks last municipal election.

BCNDP need to become a lot more Vision than COPE if they're ever going to win an election...

# ¿ Dec 12, 2015 07:03

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

How on earth does anyone from COPE get any traction at the BC NDP? Their policies were a garbage fire and they got completely and utterly smoked in the municipal election. They are huge, unredeemable failures.What justification is someone at the BC NDP using to give these folks any position of relevance?

# ¿ Dec 12, 2015 08:25

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Trudeau is visiting Vancouver City Hall tomorrow morning. Maybe he'll just re-announce the opening of the Kits Lifeguard station or maybe something new? Federal cash for the Malkin connection to Clark that is a necessary part of the Viaduct teardown plan would make sense. A rejigging of the typical "1/3 each government" transit funding arrangement in a way such that Vancouver doesn't have to pay as much for the Broadway Line would be a big surprise.

# ¿ Dec 17, 2015 05:54

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Gus Hobbleton posted:

Transit is a good thing, and it's such a shame that the general populace's opinion of transit is "Oh I can't use that, it's for poor people and *gags* LABORERS!"

One of the more interesting facts that came to my attention during the Vancouver transit referendum was that among west coast cities, Translink was not only a leader in terms of ridership (20% of commuters vs SF's 15%) but also in terms of variety of incomes and professions among users. Transit is most heavily used among low income earners, but there is significant use among high income earners too. The study stated that more people in Finance and Real Estate take transit than Construction workers (20% vs 12%). This is in contrast to places like LA, where transit is apparently near exclusively used by the poor.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2015 18:41

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Speaking of bad urban planning, the BC Liberals are once again completely ignoring Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy and have announced that they will replace the Massey Tunnel with the biggest bridge in BC. The $3.2 billion 10 lane bridge will replace a 4 lane tunnel.

Driving in Metro Vancouver is bad enough with the current volumes so I can't even imagine how terrible it's going to be in the Fraser Valley when due to the induced demand created by this new bridge, there are enough cars on the road to fill up these 10 lanes. We know this will happen due to the example of LA and many other places.

In contrast the City of Vancouver has not increased any road capacity in over 30 years and the amount of cars entering the downtown core remains static at 1964 levels despite huge increases in the amount of people living and working there.

# ¿ Dec 21, 2015 23:05

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

The amount of daily transit commuters on the Broadway corridor easily exceeds the 80k daily drivers that cross the Massey Tunnel lol.

It's almost as if the BC Liberals ideologically hate transit.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 00:38

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

THC posted:

They voted in a useless independent in protest but would never elect an opposition MLA because fast ferries. Measures like the new bridge will bring them back into the Liberal fold.

The BC Liberals made a big effort to have the Delta Mayor at the press conference for the new bridge, whereas no one from the Richmond side was there, so yeah this whole thing is a politically motivated.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 07:59

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

James Baud posted:

It's not really overbuilding when it's the primary route linking nearly a million people (Vancouver, Richmond) to both the US border, the primary ferry terminal to the island, and oh yeah, also the part of Surrey that's seeing probably 90% of their recent and future population growth of 10k+ people per year. To say nothing of the population boom that would follow any relaxing of the ALR... Granted everybody living on the Fraser's flood plain is a fool, but when has that stopped people before?

Well yes when transit is completely eliminated as an option, which the BC Liberals have done, then doubling down on car oriented urban planning becomes the only remaining solution. In this case we're not overbuilding, it's all that's possible. The BC Liberals have engineered it such that this is the only viable growth strategy.

You're on the ball bringing up the ALR. This entire thing is a real estate play. There has already been efforts to undermine the Agricultural Land Reserve. Expect more of this to continue and for the BC Liberals to tie it into the housing affordability problem. The Liberals will claim that the ALR is restricting supply and causing prices to rise. The solution will be to free up land in Delta/Tsawwassen for tracts of low density single family housing.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 08:08 on Dec 22, 2015

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 08:06

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

sitchensis posted:

I bet you dollars to donuts that some of the biggest donors to the BC Liberals in the previous election were major development firms ("homebuilders") who have a big interest in seeing the ALR used for single family housing.

It would be interesting to have a look. I have to dash out of the house so I don't have time to dig into it, but I can say from my memory of the last time I looked at the list of BC Liberal donators, that the Car Dealers Association is in the top 3, and since there's zero restrictions on how much anyone can donate they donated a lot.

# ¿ Dec 22, 2015 17:54

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

I liked the part where the house owner is arrested for spraying people with bear spray and also the racooons. :3:

So this guy has like 4 cameras around his house. Does he scrub through the footage every day? Can you even recognize anyone from footage like this? It seems completely useless to me (except for watching scary/funny absurd car drivers).

At the very end of the video you have a compilation of people peering into his garage then walking away. Some of them look like they bail because they see the camera, but I wonder if most leave simply because the lights turn on and there's nothing of value in the car.

Do these cameras actually reduce crime? They don't seem that useful after something has been stolen, unless you happen to have a super HD camera (which these aren't) and the guy is known to police. They don't seem like that big of a deterrent either. It seems to me that the bigger deterrent is good lighting, good doors, and no obvious valuables of interest.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 20:18

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Cameras seem like obvious wastes of money to me, though there's clearly a huge industry pushing them for crime prevention.

It was a sanity check question.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 20:50

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

I have a friend in Strathcona that made a fake security camera out of paper mache.

It didn't stop her house from being broken into.

I'm sure making it was a fun art project though.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2015 21:02

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

brucio posted:

A referendum ballot with choices without FPTP would be fine with me.

If we're going to have a referendum then the status quo should be an option, but it should not be presented as a "Do we change to X system Yes/No" type question. Voters should be asked to choose from several options, FPTP included, with descriptions of the system next to each choice.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2015 18:38

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

If we're going to have multiple parties in our FPTP elections, which often yields odd outcomes, we should do the same with our referenda.

# ¿ Dec 31, 2015 18:42

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

It was discussed much earlier in this thread that the NDP's policies around taxation are different from otherwise similar European left wing parties. Recently the NDP has supported higher corporate taxes, low small business taxes and in this most recent election the party didn't support personal income tax increases, with Mulcair calling tax rates above 50% "confiscation." With the NDP failing federally and in Ontario and BC I would think there's an argument to be made that this approach is simply not appealing to enough people. Are there any MPs or groups within the NDP that are advocating starkly different policy directions? For example the Nordic Model?

# ¿ Jan 2, 2016 02:34

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

Rime posted:

I've noticed the same contrast, and honestly can't tell if it's the rampant corruption which feeds increasing amounts of time and money into unnecessary pockets or just that city halls are held captive by a populace which threatens to depose them if they move a manhole cover five feet in any direction.

In previous terms the Vision dominated Vancouver council moved pretty aggressively in building protected bike lanes over loud complaints from the Downtown BIA and other groups. They knew they had the political capital to do it and the time. With the transit referendum behind them Vancouver has begun planning for 12 new bike lanes. Again Vision has a strong majority and plenty of time before the next election in 2018.

In comparison to Toronto it feels a lot more poo poo gets done in Vancouver. I wonder if having an at large system and municipal political parties instead of a ward system and individual councillors is the reason. If you get a big majority as Vision has, you can push an agenda through effectively.

Femtosecond fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Jan 3, 2016

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 04:42

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

eXXon posted:

This has a lot more to do with Toronto's city council governing a ~5x large area and population than anything else.

That's a good point to raise.

(but I thought almalgamation was supposed to make everything more efficient! welp)

# ¿ Jan 3, 2016 06:30

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

quote:

B.C. Premier Christy Clark calls by-elections for two ridings

Premier Christy Clark has called by-elections in two Lower Mainland ridings, with voters in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant and Coquitlam-Burke Mountain scheduled to go to the polls 15 months before B.C.�s next general election.

The by-elections on Feb. 2 could provide a glimpse of what�s in store for Ms. Clark�s Liberal government next year in her second election as Premier.

Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, a New Democratic Party stronghold, had been held by Jenny Kwan since 1996. Ms. Kwan is now serving as a federal MP after winning a seat for the NDP in last fall�s federal election.

Coquitlam-Burke Mountain had been represented by B.C. Liberal Doug Horne since 2009. Mr. Horne ran for the federal Conservatives last fall but lost. The B.C. Liberal Party is not affiliated with the federal Liberals.

Hamish Telford, an associate professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, said by-elections can serve as a referendum on the government of the day.

�People can vote without any risk of consequences. Even if the Liberals lose both of these, they�re still going to be the government,� he said in an interview.

However, Prof. Telford said he expects the NDP and the Liberals to reclaim the ridings they previously held.

�By-elections can also be very local affairs and really take on the issues of the particular ridings at play. I think we�re likely to see a bit of those things, but I�m guessing probably more local than provincial,� he said.

Prof. Telford said issues such as transit, housing and resource projects could influence voters.

In Vancouver-Mount Pleasant, Melanie Mark was named as the NDP candidate in June, giving her several months to meet with constituents. The Liberals nominated Gavin Dew last month.

Ms. Mark worked for eight years at B.C.�s Office of the Representative for Children and Youth. She is Nisga�a, Gitxsan, Cree and Ojibwa, and she served as president of the Urban Native Youth Association from 2000-06.

�I�ve been tackling tough issues my whole life and I�ve been able to deliver,� Ms. Mark, who was born and raised in the riding but now lives outside it, said in an interview. �That�s what people are looking for: Someone who�s experienced and can advocate on tough issues.�

Mr. Dew said he knows it will be difficult to win what has for decades been an NDP riding.

�There�s no question this is going to be an uphill battle. I know that I�m the underdog in this fight,� he said in an interview.

However, Mr. Dew said it�s time voters in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant had a representative who�s actually a member of the governing party.

Mr. Dew said he plans to talk to residents about issues such as supporting the technology and craft-brewing sectors, the new St. Paul�s Hospital and transit. He, like Ms. Mark, lives just outside the riding. Mr. Dew�s background is as a small-business owner, running a consulting firm.

The Green Party will be represented in Vancouver-Mount Pleasant by Pete Fry. In a statement, Mr. Fry said he expects by-election issues to include unaffordability, economic development and Kinder Morgan�s Trans Mountain pipeline.

In Coquitlam-Burke Mountain, the Liberals will be represented by Joan Isaacs, while Jodie Wickens is running for the NDP. Joe Keithley is the candidate for the Greens.

The BC NDP still seem like such insane basketcases that I want to vote for another party to ~send them a message~. Voting for the Greens seems like the obvious choice, but I'm kinda liking the comedy option voting BC Liberals.

Is Mr.Drew going to exclusively campaign at 33 Acres?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2016 06:32

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

quote:

B.C. rejects Kinder Morgan�s bid to expand Trans Mountain pipeline

British Columbia cannot support Kinder Morgan Canada�s $6.8-billion Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project because the company is not offering sufficient details of its spill-response plans, the government says.

In a new blow to the Alberta-based energy sector, the Liberal government of Premier Christy Clark said it is unable to determine whether the project meets two of five conditions it has insisted upon for supporting heavy crude oil pipelines, based on the information provided.

In its final written submission to the project�s National Energy Board (NEB) review, the province said it had asked Kinder Morgan on three occasions for detailed information on preventing spills along the pipeline route and at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, B.C., and on responding to emergencies that might occur. Kinder Morgan owns 100 per cent of Trans Mountain.

It has not received timely responses and details of the company�s emergency management program were heavily redacted, it said.

�Had Trans Mountain provided sufficient information � to enable the province to conclude that it would have world-class marine and terrestrial spill prevention and response capacity, then the province would have been in a position to support �the issuance of a certificate for the project,� the submission says. �However, this is not the case.�

The project is currently seen as the front-runner pipeline in the energy industry�s hopes to get major volumes of oil-sands-derived crude to the West Coast, where it would be exposed to more lucrative international markets. Enbridge Inc.�s competing Northern Gateway proposal won conditional approval, but a new federal ban on oil tankers on the northern B.C. coast has cast serious doubt on its fate.

Under Kinder Morgan�s proposal, the capacity of the current Trans Mountain line to Burnaby from near Edmonton would be tripled to 890,000 barrels a day.

Kinder Morgan said on Monday that it is confident that further talks with the B.C. government, coupled with its meeting 150 draft conditions the NEB has imposed, will help address B.C.�s concerns. However, the company alone can�t satisfy all of the requirements, it said.

�The conditions related to world-leading marine oil spill response, recovery and prevention, addressing aboriginal treaty rights and B.C. receiving its �fair share� are all conditions that require multiple parties to come to the table and work together,� it said.

The idea of building heavy oil pipelines across B.C. has been a bone of contention between Ms. Clark and Alberta leaders, most notably former Progressive Conservative premier Alison Redford. B.C. also insists that the province, including First Nations, get economic benefits. Since its election last May, Alberta�s NDP government backed the oil industry in its quest for new markets as it struggles with crude prices that have collapsed to near $30 (U.S.) a barrel. Applying a current market discount for Alberta�s landlocked heavy crude, that oil is worth less than $17 a barrel.

Alberta officials spoke with their B.C. counterparts about the NEB submission to make sure they understood the position. Alberta will keep encouraging Kinder Morgan to work with the federal and B.C. governments on the outstanding issues, said Cheryl Oates, a spokeswoman for Alberta Premier Rachel Notley.

�Premier Notley and Premier Clark have met twice since the spring election in Alberta. Our two governments have kept in touch on these issues,� Ms. Oates said.

B.C. Environment Minister Mary Polak said government officials in Alberta are open-minded. �They recognize the NEB process is only one process, and they are interested in continuing the work with us because of course they have an interest in moving their product,� she said during a conference call.

She played down the role of Alberta royalties when it comes to B.C. seeking its �fair share� of economic spinoffs. �This isn�t about royalties. It�s about finding ways for British Columbians to benefit,� Ms. Polak said.

B.C. said it will keep evaluating the project, outside the current proceeding. The NEB is due to issue its decision in May.

B.C.'s five conditions

B.C. outlined five conditions required for government support of any heavy-oil pipeline to be built across the province:

* Successfully complete the environmental review process. For the Trans Mountain Expansion project, that would mean a National Energy Board recommendation that the project proceed

* Deploy world-leading marine-oil-spill response, prevention and recovery systems for the coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate risks

* Have world-leading practices for oil-spill prevention, response and recovery systems on land

* Ensure legal requirements regarding aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources to participate in and benefit

* Ensure British Columbia receives a fair share of fiscal and economic benefits that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers

Remember when Dix lost the election because he rejected this on a whim? Lol.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 04:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 15:37

Femtosecond: Aug 2, 2003

JawKnee posted:

I remember Dix losing the election, but for more reasons than this

Yep, but this was a notable event during the election that played exactly into the "NDP are against everything" stereotype that I think is a primary reason people don't vote for them after "the 90s" and "fast ferries."

This contrasted starkly with the BC Liberal's hugely ambitious LNG scheme.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2016 05:11

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol Megathread: Big Changus

«‹›10 »