Calgary Federal Politics

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't think anyone here is supporting Peter Kent, Ezra Levant and their crowd, so let's not make a strawman. The question really is, how much upside do the greens have vs. the potential upside of a philosophically more centrist that also has a good environmental head on his shoulders. The optics of the greens, as you know, is a one trick pony / single issue party. Be that the reality or not, a single green in the parliament will not result in anything for Calgary, and will not really even afford him much of a voice when it comes to committees and the like. That's a reality.

What is clear is that the centrist vote overall, or non-con vote to make it even broader and include the greens/NDP, cumulatively, is much larger than the support for the cons. How that pans out will depend largely on the third place contender.

As I've elluded to in a prior note, Chris may have peaked too early, leaving the cons that you've converted enough time to re-think their positions. They may realize that they'll potentially either put into parliament a lone wolf without a real voice, or split the vote allowing for the Wildrose Party's preferred candidate to get in.

You can call it fear mongering or not, it is simply just the reality. Anyone with a brain can see that the non-con vote is currently split.

How is it a single issue party when they have policies on electoral reform, affordable housing, sustainable funding for municipal infrastructure, food safety, the long-form census, funding for scientific research, early childhood education, modernizing the electrical grid, refugee health care, income splitting, EI, income tax changes for those making less than 20K/year, foreign policy, youth employment and creating municipal superfunds for wastewater treatment, brownfield remediation, mass transit and housing?

Heck, Elizabeth May's greatest work in Parliament was challenging the Omnibus budget bill. How is that single issue?

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by fusili

The professional crowd is moving green too. I've talked to many in the oil and gas industry and they are definitely receptive to the Greens. Several people working in the campaign are Oil and Gas veterans.

When Peter Kent's response to environmental criticism of our energy sector is the "ethical oil" argument (AKA we are not a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia) it hurts our industry, because we just look defensive. Showing actual leadership in environmental stewardship and responsible resource development is a much better strategy. If we want to convince people that the oil sands are a responsible resource, we don't focus on how Hugo Chavez is a dictator, but how things like SAGD reduce the impact of extraction. We focus on demonstrating how federal and provincial regulations and monitoring improve ground and fresh water quality involved in the industry. We listen to people's critiques and explain how we are addressing them rather then dismissing them as radicals. That is how you show leadership and gain allies.

I'd also like to see government move in an "open-source" direction that allows for more input from citizens. I believe the Conservatives are at risk of losing the next election primarily due to wrong people, processes and technology. This is much worse for Alberta if the NDP get in, and this is a chance to send a message to the Conservatives that they NEED to make changes. Not only with respect to the environment, but the need to build an e-government that hopefully allows for better engagement in the future as well.

[PoscStudent]

The big problem with Chris Turner is he will have little influence as a member of a party not even recognized in the House of Commons.

[Rusty van Reddick]

I hate that 308's analysis doesn't even take the land line issue into account. Huge, huge issue.

[Rusty van Reddick]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I could see that with the older retired folks, but not professionals in-tune with Calgary's economic needs.

Wow, that's wrong on so many levels. Calgary's "economic needs" include diversification and attempting to future-proof our economy. Anybody in tune with our "economic needs" would drop the Oil Sands cheerleaders and vote for somebody with an actual long term vision. They might also not vote for a party that is rife with corruption, criminality, utter contempt for democracy, and absolutely shattering hypocrisy. The CPC is a party that is morally bankrupt.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Wow, that's wrong on so many levels. Calgary's "economic needs" include diversification and attempting to future-proof our economy. Anybody in tune with our "economic needs" would drop the Oil Sands cheerleaders and vote for somebody with an actual long term vision. They might also not vote for a party that is rife with corruption, criminality, utter contempt for democracy, and absolutely shattering hypocrisy. The CPC is a party that is morally bankrupt.

The need for proper investment and management of non-renewable resources is key. They are there for a limited time, and we better use them to properly invest in other sectors of the economy.

Let's not be Saudi Arabia and squander it all away.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by rusty van reddick

wow, that's wrong on so many levels. Calgary's "economic needs" include diversification and attempting to future-proof our economy. Anybody in tune with our "economic needs" would drop the oil sands cheerleaders and vote for somebody with an actual long term vision. They might also not vote for a party that is rife with corruption, criminality, utter contempt for democracy, and absolutely shattering hypocrisy. The cpc is a party that is morally bankrupt.

I see Joan Crockatt is also missing the CJSW debate at the University of Calgary campus. Too busy holding Conservative signs on the side of the road by Upper Mount Royal.

[Radley77]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

The big problem with Chris Turner is he will have little influence as a member of a party not even recognized in the House of Commons.

I guess the message is more that Calgary is a place where people can compete for ideas. The Liberals have said that they would support oil tanker bans, the Greens have said they would support no oil sands expansion, and NDP have called oilsands the Dutch Disease (which was rebuked by the Bank of Canada). IMO, this has more to do with Calgary being able to influence party politics than influence on the house of commons. I'd argue that there are large swaths of Alberta that are up for grabs and could be placed in competition if there were better party policies.

[PoscStudent]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

I hate that 308's analysis doesn't even take the land line issue into account. Huge, huge issue.

What issue would that be?

[fusili]

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

What issue would that be?

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.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by suburbia

I don't think anyone here is supporting Peter Kent, Ezra Levant and their crowd, so let's not make a strawman. The question really is, how much upside do the greens have vs. the potential upside of a philosophically more centrist that also has a good environmental head on his shoulders. The optics of the greens, as you know, is a one trick pony / single issue party. Be that the reality or not, a single green in the parliament will not result in anything for Calgary, and will not really even afford him much of a voice when it comes to committees and the like. That's a reality.

Originally Posted by fusili

How is it a single issue party when they have policies on electoral reform, affordable housing, sustainable funding for municipal infrastructure, food safety, the long-form census, funding for scientific research, early childhood education, modernizing the electrical grid, refugee health care, income splitting, EI, income tax changes for those making less than 20K/year, foreign policy, youth employment and creating municipal superfunds for wastewater treatment, brownfield remediation, mass transit and housing?

Fusili - you clearly didn't read my post very thoughtfully and have created a false strawman once again. I didn't say they were a one trick pony, what I said was that this is the optics of the greens. I highlighted this in context of there being limited upside to the 25% they are currently polling at. Read the entire bolded red part.

Originally Posted by PoscStudent

The big problem with Chris Turner is he will have little influence as a member of a party not even recognized in the House of Commons.

PoscStudent - absolutely. I highlighted this in my prior post also (bolded blue part), however, Fusili chose not to read or respond to the post comprehensively, instead, responded to an argument that I was not even making in the first place!

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

Fusili - you clearly didn't read my post very thoughtfully and have created a false strawman once again. I didn't say they were a one trick pony, what I said was that this is the optics of the greens. I highlighted this in context of there being limited upside to the 25% they are currently polling at. Read the entire bolded red part.

PoscStudent - absolutely. I highlighted this in my prior post also (bolded blue part), however, Fusili chose not to read or respond to the post comprehensively, instead, responded to an argument that I was not even making in the first place!

Another liberal, or another NDP or another Conservative in parliament will all have no effect on the balance of power, nor on the ability to introduce legislation. A second green means they can introduce bills with a seconder.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

Another liberal, or another NDP or another Conservative in parliament will all have no effect on the balance of power, nor on the ability to introduce legislation. A second green means they can introduce bills with a seconder.

It would mean that there would be someone in Calgary in a Federal Party that was other than the Conservative Party. It is what it is. Spin out of it as you'd like.

By your lack of response to my prior comment, I assume you now agree with me that there is little upside with the greens beyond the current 25%, given the prevalent optics of the party being a one trick pony.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by suburbia

It would mean that there would be someone in Calgary in a Federal Party that was other than the Conservative Party. It is what it is. Spin out of it as you'd like.

By your lack of response to my prior comment, I assume you now agree with me that there is little upside with the greens beyond the current 25%, given the prevalent optics of the party being a one trick pony.

Every political party has to start somewhere. Voting a second member of the green party to Parliament will help change the optics of the party and will get more people interested in their message. It will show that Calgary Centre wants a new voice in Ottawa. You can continue to be cynical, but it really will never get you anywhere.

[suburbia]

Originally Posted by fusili

Every political party has to start somewhere. Voting a second member of the green party to Parliament will help change the optics of the party and will get more people interested in their message.

That I'll agree with. Absolutely true.

[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.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by Radley77

Update from 308.com:
This *may* indicate that Green support may be coming from the Conservatives...

If yoiu believe the forum poll (which I think is a little suspect given the other ridings are 550+ population vs Calgary Centre at 376), the greens are pulling votes from the cons. However what the Greens/ Progressives have not been able to accomplish is to consolidate the Progressive vote behind one candidate. To accomplish this feat each Progressive candidate must turn on the other two and start to explain why they are the better candidate. Currently the debates have mostly focused on the Conservative record.

The easiest approach to hit Turner would be for Meades to remind everyone the National Transit Strategy is being spearheaded by a Senior member of the OLO (O Chow) and not from the Greens. So if you want the National Transit Strategy, vote NDP.

Another question is whether Locke can capitalize on Trudeau's popularity wave plus support for the Nexen/CNOOC deal to help explain the liberals are changing their tune to be more Western focus party.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by Rusty van Reddick

Wow, that's wrong on so many levels. Calgary's "economic needs" include diversification and attempting to future-proof our economy. Anybody in tune with our "economic needs" would drop the Oil Sands cheerleaders and vote for somebody with an actual long term vision. They might also not vote for a party that is rife with corruption, criminality, utter contempt for democracy, and absolutely shattering hypocrisy. The CPC is a party that is morally bankrupt.

Government attempts to diversify the economy, especially in Alberta, have been resounding failures. The only difference between the parties on that front are the scam artists with which they choose to do business. The real future proofing of the economy will come through sustainable finances which meens weening government from debt. Which candidate or party would promote the most efficient managament? Certainly not the NDP with its overriding goal of plumping up public sector and unionized employees, or the Liberals coddling the Toronto-Montreal economic and cultural elites. The Greens are untested, but pot smokers, hippies, artists and activists gernally don't make good managers.

[Elbownian]

Originally Posted by Doug

Government attempts to diversify the economy, especially in Alberta, have been resounding failures. The only difference between the parties on that front are the scam artists with which they choose to do business. The real future proofing of the economy will come through sustainable finances which meens weening government from debt. Which candidate or party would promote the most efficient managament? Certainly not the NDP with its overriding goal of plumping up public sector and unionized employees, or the Liberals coddling the Toronto-Montreal economic and cultural elites. The Greens are untested, but pot smokers, hippies, artists and activists gernally don't make good managers.

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!

[Radley77]

A recent article rallying against Trudeau's most recent support for the CNOOC\Nexen merger & arguing that the oilsands should be left in the ground and capped. :

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/matt-price/trudeau-back-nexen-_b_2162562.html

Will be interesting how long the Liberal potential leaders stick around Calgary to support the oil and gas industry. I definitely see this as an uptick in support for Harvey Locke (having federal Liberal leadership here in Calgary to support responsible oilsands development). I think this really highlights why it's not in Alberta's best interest to be all Blue, really need to start influencing all party policies and not just one.