Calgary Federal Politics

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

Just made the connection...Chris Turner wrote that condescending article in The Walrus last year and his wife was a CanCon TV star in the 80s (she was on Harriets Margic Hats).

He seems like a decedent candidate but as someone already mentioned his strenghts seem to be more around municipal issues, not federal ones. I suspect Turner will place second, just ahead of Locke, and Crockatt will win with a slim margin and become a non-descript banckbencher. At least she looks good.

Municipal funding is a massive federal issue. We build most of our infrastructure using grant money from the federal government. Having a federal program for municipal infrastructure funding that is sustainable, reliable and predictable isn't just about more money, it is about the ability to borrow against future transfers. Having a plan of this sort means we can plan and finance things like the SE/NC LRT without having to wait for windfall grants that say "here is some money go spend it within 3 years!". I would rather have a stable wage than a better shot at winning the lottery.

Simply put, we need someone in Ottawa to fight for cities.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by Doug

The Greens are untested, but pot smokers, hippies, artists and activists gernally don't make good managers.

Neither does your mother, who obviously drank herself into a stupor when she was carrying you.

edit- okay that was uncalled for, but these stereotypes are just stupid and inaccurate.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

The Greens are untested, but pot smokers, hippies, artists and activists gernally don't make good managers.

Funny considering one of the volunteers I met on the campaign is a Geophysicist who worked for O&G for a long time and then became a founder of a Geothermal Power company. Must be a poor manager I guess.

[artvandelay]

Well this will be my first time voting in Calgary Centre so I spent some time researching the candidates over the weekend. I consider myself a fiscal conservative with socially liberal leanings, so I would normally vote for the CPC but since this is an inconsequential by-election I'm open to other options.

Joan Crockatt: Her website is awful. It features a biography of Joan, general Conservative Party news, and contains nothing of substance that relates to the riding of Calgary Centre (It's great that the Tories are standing up for prairie farmers, but I doubt it's a top issue for Calgary Centre constituents). Where are her positions on the contemporary issues that matter to Calgarians - namely the Nexen-CNOOC deal, expansion of trade with Europe/Asia, and corporate tax rates?

I was forced to search for information on Ms. Crockatt through news sources and to her credit, she seems to be a competent manager with private sector experience, and she has liberal views on social issues that I agree with. Ken King seems to have high regard for her and that is a definite plus. However I remain unimpressed with the vanilla campaign she is running and will consider other options. Gaining the vote of someone such as myself should be a slam dunk for the Tories and they have failed to do so. I'm tempted to wait until the next general election for a superior Conservative candidate to come along.


Chris Turner: It's immediately apparent by looking at his website that Turner has put far more effort into his campaign. I don't agree with all of his priorities, but I like that he will advocate for transit funding and he seems to be more in tune with local issues. His view of the emerging green economy is pie in the sky stuff at this point in time, but I would like to see some strategic investment in this sector to ensure that Calgary remains an energy capital when alternative energy truly becomes feasible.

If Turner was running as an independent, I'd vote for him. What concerns me is the Green Party ticket. I went on their website and had a browse through this looney tunes document:
Vision Green 2011

Contained within the above are these policy highlights:

-"Place a moratorium on further oil sands development (i.e. increases in annual production).
Immediately provide the required six months' notice of withdrawal from NAFTA."
-"Oppose any extension of NAFTA-like provisions into a trade deal with Europe. Demand open and transparent discussions, engaging, not just business leaders, but civil society; Reject any inclusion of Chapter 11 Investor-State provisions."
-"Urge British Columbia and Alberta to pull out of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement and devise agreements to ensure the sovereignty of sub-national governments, energy security, food security for all Canadians while ensuring Charter rights and refraining from embedding the supremacy of property rights into trade agreements."
-"Implement a national energy security strategy that includes a means to deal with diminishing oil supplies, insecurity of oil foreign supplies, distribution of western oil to eastern Canada [hmm, sounds familiar], and the implementation of a rapid transition from oil and other fossil fuel-based energy sources to secure, sustainable Canadian renewable energy sources."
[et cetera...]

The policies advocated in the above document are not only infeasible, but insane as well. This party seems to think that Canada can exist as a self sufficient utopia devoid of international trade, and they want to increase interprovincial trade barriers on top of that. I know that Turner has said that he will oppose many of these policies as a sitting Green MP, but the fact that he is even associating himself with a party that advocates them is troubling.


Harvey Locke: I've never been a fan of the Toronto-West Island Montreal elite dominated Liberal Party, but I'm hopeful that it can reinvent and rejuvenate itself to reclaim official opposition status in the future. His website is better than Crockatt's, but that's not saying much. Unfortunately it lacks content as well. What are his priorities for the riding?

Originally Posted by Harvey's Website

If like me you are deeply concerned about the direction of our country....there is action that you can take.

So why is Harvey concerned, and what are the specific actions that he and the Liberal Party will take to rectify this? - I don't see them listed anywhere. Another campaign that lacks substance, and I am going to rule this one out.


Dan Meades: The only scenario where I could see myself voting NDP is if I were to go insane, so I didn't bother doing any research. Are the mentally incompetent allowed to vote is Canada?


Tony Prashad: I was intrigued to see a Libertarian candidate in the riding, but he doesn't have a website and seems to only care about local food production and urban agriculture. Not sure how that fits with Libertarianism.

At this point in time I am still undecided between Crockatt and Turner.

[Bigtime]

This just came across on Twitter:

Turnout in #yycentre advance polls is down 60%. If this trend holds for the byelection turnout will be ~22%.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=nov2012b&dir=pre&lang=e

If this type of low voter turnout holds true who could it potentially benefit the most? My gut feeling tells me this is better for the Libs and Greens.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by fusili

The fact that many younger people no longer have land lines. Many, many young people. Not a single one of my friends (we are in the 25-35 age category) has a land line. The poll completely misses this demographic.

Breaking News

I am not one of Fusili's friends (and I have a land line).




Real life drama now in this thread.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

Breaking News

I am not one of Fusili's friends (and I have a land line).




Real life drama now in this thread.

How dare you use mention technology in my presence? We used to be friends. Not any more.



Ok, one of my friends has a land line.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

This just came across on Twitter:



http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=nov2012b&dir=pre&lang=e

If this type of low voter turnout holds true who could it potentially benefit the most? My gut feeling tells me this is better for the Libs and Greens.

Incumbents generally do better in low voter turnout numbers. The numbers in Calgary Centre are down a lot more than other two by-elections.

My guess is the primary benefactor is CPC-Croakatte.

On the flip side it could also point to an electorate that cannot make up its mind and is waiting until last second to determine which candidate to vote for. This could be better for the Progressive candidates looking to consolidate the left of centre vote.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

This just came across on Twitter:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&document=nov2012b&dir=pre&lang=e

If this type of low voter turnout holds true who could it potentially benefit the most? My gut feeling tells me this is better for the Libs and Greens.

I'd agree with your assessment, and between the Libs and Greens, it would probably favour the Greens more so. Their support is the most sticky. They'll even camp outside in the cold to hold up a placard and chant!

Seriously though, if it is 22%, it says quite a bit, and I think the Tucker / Nenshi comparison just went out the door. Nenshi single-handedly was able to increase overall participation. It may also say something about the constituents of Calgary-Centre. It is a very diverse constituency on many fronts, and I often wonder if renting individuals tend to vote less.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

Chris Turner: It's immediately apparent by looking at his website that Turner has put far more effort into his campaign. I don't agree with all of his priorities, but I like that he will advocate for transit funding and he seems to be more in tune with local issues. His view of the emerging green economy is pie in the sky stuff at this point in time, but I would like to see some strategic investment in this sector to ensure that Calgary remains an energy capital when alternative energy truly becomes feasible.

If Turner was running as an independent, I'd vote for him. What concerns me is the Green Party ticket. I went on their website and had a browse through this looney tunes document:
Vision Green 2011

Contained within the above are these policy highlights:

"Implement a national energy security strategy that includes a means to deal with diminishing oil supplies, insecurity of oil foreign supplies, distribution of western oil to eastern Canada [hmm, sounds familliar], and the implementation of a rapid transition from oil and other fossil fuel-based energy sources to secure, sustainable Canadian renewable energy sources."

Not really sure what "familliar" (sic) sounding thing you're talking about, here. Please enlighten.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by fusili

The fact that many younger people no longer have land lines. Many, many young people. Not a single one of my friends (we are in the 25-35 age category) has a land line. The poll completely misses this demographic.

It doesn't miss that demographic. Polling companies make sure to get a certain number of people from different age groups, usually based on their population.

I agree many don't have land lines, but many do. If a poll ask fifty 25-35 year olds, who own land lines, which parties they support the results would likely not be much different if they only asked people who have cell phones.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by fusili

Municipal funding is a massive federal issue. We build most of our infrastructure using grant money from the federal government. Having a federal program for municipal infrastructure funding that is sustainable, reliable and predictable isn't just about more money, it is about the ability to borrow against future transfers. Having a plan of this sort means we can plan and finance things like the SE/NC LRT without having to wait for windfall grants that say "here is some money go spend it within 3 years!". I would rather have a stable wage than a better shot at winning the lottery.

Simply put, we need someone in Ottawa to fight for cities.

Cities are a creation of the provincial government. Chaning that is a provincial issue.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by fusili

Funny considering one of the volunteers I met on the campaign is a Geophysicist who worked for O&G for a long time and then became a founder of a Geothermal Power company. Must be a poor manager I guess.

A volunteer is not a candidate.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Neither does your mother, who obviously drank herself into a stupor when she was carrying you.

edit- okay that was uncalled for, but these stereotypes are just stupid and inaccurate.

Well my late mother was the President of the Calgary District Hospital Group in the 80's when it managed the Rockyview, Holy Cross and Belcher. What does a Humanities prof know about management?

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Elbownian

So, you want to save money now by trimming expenditures, and somehow live off those savings after the oil runs out? Good luck with that. If Alberta doesn't diversify, it is doomed. Plain and simple.

Incidentally, I am not a pot smoker, hippie, artist, or activist, and will be voting Green. Way to generalize!

Basically turn non-recurring resource revenues into recurring ones by building an endowment fund similar to Norway. Government has a horrible track record at picking winners and losers (ex. Obama's forays into solar energy and ethanol). It has a role in creating an environment that fosters innovation and ultimately diversification, but that is not something that can be understood, articulated or implemented. Alberta tried all sorts of diversification programs in the 80's and every single one failed unless lining the pockets of Peter Pocklington is considered success. Entrepreneurs diversify the economy.

[artvandelay]

Originally Posted by Doug

Basically turn non-recurring resource revenues into recurring ones by building an endowment fund similar to Norway. Government has a horrible track record at picking winners and losers (ex. Obama's forays into solar energy and ethanol). It has a role in creating an environment that fosters innovation and ultimately diversification, but that is not something that can be understood, articulated or implemented. Alberta tried all sorts of diversification programs in the 80's and every single one failed unless lining the pockets of Peter Pocklington is considered success. Entrepreneurs diversify the economy.

I agree with you, but it should be mentioned that the only one of Lougheed's diversification schemes to be successful was the development of the petrochemical industry in Alberta - because it has an obvious synergy with the oil and gas sector. Having said that, I don't believe that government should ever be relied upon to foster innovation, but it should be accountable for creating the economic and regulatory conditions that enable innovation to occur.

Originally Posted by Dado

Not really sure what "familliar" (sic) sounding thing you're talking about, here. Please enlighten.

You seem like like a reasonably well-informed individual and I have complete confidence in your ability to connect the dots on your own.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

I agree with you, but it should be mentioned that the only one of Lougheed's diversification schemes to be successful was the development of the petrochemical industry in Alberta - because it has an obvious synergy with the oil and gas sector. Having said that, I don't believe that government should ever be relied upon to foster innovation, but it should be accountable for creating the economic and regulatory conditions that enable innovation to occur.
.

Could not say it better. One example would be the feed-in-tariff (Germany's implementation of it, not Ontario's). It provides industry with a stable market price with which they can operate in, and better, the "subsidy" is tied to energy production, and isn't just a one-off capital grant (which is stupid IMO). Behind this is a stable regulatory regime in Germany where manufacturers can act with stability.

I have a friend involved in the wind industry in Britain. The problems there are a completely unpredictable and unstable regulatory regime. Investors, entrepreneurs, banks, customers etc all need to be able to work in an environment where they know investments today can be counted on tomorrow. That is the regulatory framework we are talking about and one that works well.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Doug

Basically turn non-recurring resource revenues into recurring ones by building an endowment fund similar to Norway. Government has a horrible track record at picking winners and losers (ex. Obama's forays into solar energy and ethanol). It has a role in creating an environment that fosters innovation and ultimately diversification, but that is not something that can be understood, articulated or implemented. Alberta tried all sorts of diversification programs in the 80's and every single one failed unless lining the pockets of Peter Pocklington is considered success. Entrepreneurs diversify the economy.

I would agree that Norway's model for energy development is one to emulate.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by fusili

Could not say it better. One example would be the feed-in-tariff (Germany's implementation of it, not Ontario's). It provides industry with a stable market price with which they can operate in, and better, the "subsidy" is tied to energy production, and isn't just a one-off capital grant (which is stupid IMO). Behind this is a stable regulatory regime in Germany where manufacturers can act with stability.

I have a friend involved in the wind industry in Britain. The problems there are a completely unpredictable and unstable regulatory regime. Investors, entrepreneurs, banks, customers etc all need to be able to work in an environment where they know investments today can be counted on tomorrow. That is the regulatory framework we are talking about and one that works well.

Most reports I have read put feed-in tarriffs for solar as one of the more expensive methods to reduce carbon:



Things like insulation retrofits aren't as sexy as solar panels but it's likely a cheaper path to take. Ontario has spent billions of dollars on 80 cents per kwhr energy. I think it's a mistake to intervene in energy markets bearing in mind corporations are already trying to figure out how to make energy as cheaply as possible, instead it is better to frame the debate on how we use energy instead and advocate for setting the right price on carbon, this puts a whole suite of potentially cheaper technologies into play.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by artvandelay

If Turner was running as an independent, I'd vote for him. What concerns me is the Green Party ticket. I went on their website and had a browse through this looney tunes document:
Vision Green 2011

Here's another one:

"We will impose a two-year moratorium on all airport expansions in order to develop a sensible post-carbon aviation plan." Unfortunately, Crockatt can't afford to bring these issues up this late in the game for fear of changing a three way race into a two way race.