|
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bust-times-are-back-in-newfoundland-and-labrador/ my hate boner is so loving huge right now
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Well that was quite an afternoon! This was my first NDP convention and it was a really great experience. Several thoughts: I think most delegates (including me) entered the convention with an open mind about Tom. The speeches by Rachel Notley and Stephen Lewis on Saturday set the bar really high for him. Even as soon as this morning, other delegates that I spoke with were still undecided, and willing to hear his big speech. The consensus was that they wanted to see him really bring the house down like Notley and Lewis and show some passion and a vision for the future. Instead, all we got was an election stump speech, which started slow and never really built into that much of anything. He was literally imploring delegates to stand up and cheer for him at the end (a la Jeb Bush), which many obliged. It probably looked like he had more support than he actually had at that point. After the results came out, I heard more than a few people say that they were pissed off with his speech. I speculate that most of the Prairie, Ontario (especially Toronto) and Atlantic delegates voted in favour of a new leader. Quebec voted mostly for him. Not sure about BC. In summary, I would say that Tom Mulcair laid out many reasons why Canadians should support the NDP, but not why Tom Mulcair was the one to make that happen, and that was what did him in. FWIW, most speculated on leadership contenders in the crowd seemed to be (in no particular order) Ashton, Leslie, Cullen and Julian. Also, I sat briefly at a table with CanPol celebrity  Jenny Kwan while we both charged our phones.
geese fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Apr 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
On a separate topic on the convention, the Alberta delegation is VERY upset about the LEAP resolution. Full disclosure, I'm a fairly recent transplant to Alberta from Ontario and I work in some capacity associated with the Alberta NDP. I won't say how I voted on this resolution (or at least not in this post) but it looked to be a very close vote from where I was sitting. I was quite surprised that they didn't 'tile the doors' and count the vote. Several Alberta cabinet ministers and MLAs have come out against it in the hours since the vote, and I suspect that the Premier herself will as well. Some people are pointing out provisions in the NDP constitution that allow for provincial arms of the party to separate from the federal party, which is a little extreme IMO. It will be quite interesting to see how this plays out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:I'm surprised none of you have talked about the fact a Tory political appointment tried to go against the new Science Minister and keep the Tory plan for the NRC to the point he got canned at the 100th anniversary celebration. Good riddance. I'm glad the NRC is halting their "transformation". With any luck the Liberals will move them back towards more discovery research instead of the applied work that McDougall had them do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
We don't need to all agree on everything, it is a democratic Party after all. They're still wrong though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
I'm gonna guess geese voted in favour of LEAP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
At least we won't have to see the weird smile again
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.macleans.ca/economy/bust-times-are-back-in-newfoundland-and-labrador/ quote:The weight of these facts hits Kelly hard. His employer of 22 years, Acan Windows and Doors, had been going all-out to supply a residential construction boom fed by oil money. But the company was sold in a leveraged purchase to a smaller competitor when business slowed in 2014, and then the oil bust hit. Faced with a cash crunch, Acan shut down last November, throwing Kelly and 70 others out of work. quote:In retrospect, Kelly regards the building spree as a classic case of irrational exuberance—something to which Newfoundlanders may have been particularly susceptible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:At least we won't have to see the weird smile again Oh god the first few minutes of his speech 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Newfoundland has gone crazy with the oil money, houses in small rural towns are 300k, everyone has insanely sick truck equity, and now that the bottom has dropped out of the cash cow we are hosed. I'm not sure what kind of foreclosure laws we have here but I would expect a lot of people are going to start losing things soon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
It's totally tubular that a whole lot of people are going to lose their homes and livelihoods thanks to financial mumbo-jumbo that benefits few people, but mostly the ultrarich.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Brannock posted:It's totally tubular that a whole lot of people are going to lose their homes and livelihoods thanks to financial mumbo-jumbo that benefits few people, but mostly the ultrarich. Don't worry about the ultrarich, they're already setting up Trudeau to take the fall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
flashman posted:Newfoundland has gone crazy with the oil money, houses in small rural towns are 300k, everyone has insanely sick truck equity, and now that the bottom has dropped out of the cash cow we are hosed. I'm not sure what kind of foreclosure laws we have here but I would expect a lot of people are going to start losing things soon. I'm honestly fascinated watching the entire process of ex tar sands workers, in a really "horrible human" way. Husbands blaming their wives for their lack of saving when things were good. "I was working out there, she was spending it all here! Where did it all go?!  "
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Brannock posted:It's totally tubular that a whole lot of people are going to lose their homes and livelihoods thanks to financial mumbo-jumbo that benefits few people, but mostly the ultrarich. I honestly feel that a lot of the "gently caress these people, they're idiots for reasons anyway" sentiment is a defence mechanism against acknowledging the true horror of it all for all the times it gets posted Dreylad posted:jesus. Andrew Coyne is not good Yeah, maybe I'm just getting humourless in my old age but even knowing what a joke the NDP is gently caress what this pampered little poo poo thinks about them
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
A few years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, my father in law is almost exactly were he started, after making more money in 5 years than he did his entire life: crap car, mounting debts, one step away from financial ruin. at a time is where it all went
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:I'm honestly fascinated watching the entire process of ex tar sands workers, in a really "horrible human" way. Not to absolve these idiots of saving when times were good, but anecdotally a third of the people that I speak to who work in the oil industry on a turn around basis do not have any idea about their finances. I've heard multiple times from different people "as long as I can go get a case of beer whenever I want when I'm home she handles the money". It's particularly rough because the lifestyle lends itself to a single earning household (extended duration away from home makes it difficult with children to have both parents working, particularly when they are young), so these people are double hosed now with no nest egg to retrain themselves or be able to help with the bills at a lower rate of income. Great time to buy a second hand snowmobile though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I grew up in small town Newfoundland so I'm getting to see a whole load of Trudeau/Notley hate from unemployed turnaround workers who never saved a dime. I could feel sorry for them, but my distaste for rural NL communities rivals CI's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:
Then again getting fired because you didn't support your own party would make anybody incredibly cynical and bitter. Tighclops posted:I honestly feel that a lot of the "gently caress these people, they're idiots for reasons anyway" sentiment is a defence mechanism against acknowledging the true horror of it all for all the times it gets posted No one wants to acknowledge that systemic problems aren't simply a matter of moral failure (see: any discussion about obesity, climate change, finances, ideological purity). Dreylad fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Apr 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
geese posted:On a separate topic on the convention, the Alberta delegation is VERY upset about the LEAP resolution. Full disclosure, I'm a fairly recent transplant to Alberta from Ontario and I work in some capacity associated with the Alberta NDP. I won't say how I voted on this resolution (or at least not in this post) but it looked to be a very close vote from where I was sitting. I was quite surprised that they didn't 'tile the doors' and count the vote. I can definitely understand why the Albertans would be upset about the LEAP resolution, even if it's just that the party is to continue studying it. It seems to me that the Alberta NDP and Federal Liberals share the same view that oilsands should be developed, but carbon pricing and other measures should be implemented to remove the negative externalities and halt the progress of climate change. I was of the initial view that we should leave the oil in the ground, but I'm coming round to the ANDP/Liberal line of thinking. Even if we are not burning carbon, we will still need petroleum products in the future and we will need to extract petroleum. If we can build a renewables based economy and correctly price carbon we can extract petroleum while not contributing to climate change as we are today. I agree with the strategy in theory, but I think it's important to consider that no one is currently suggesting a level of carbon pricing that would make some oil sands development impossible, and Trudeau hasn't been able to get any movement on a national carbon price. On the former point I'm concerned that no one will ever have the political will to implement a carbon price that while necessary, would halt some oil sands development. There's clearly a lot of posters here that think we should leave the oil in the ground. I'd be curious to know the justification for that position over what the ANDP/Liberals are suggesting. Is it as I've just stated that any carbon pricing policies will be half measures that don't go far enough? Is it that we will still be exporting to countries that could be quite happy to burn our petroleum and contribute to climate change? On this last point I wonder if it's at all legal to put in place export restrictions on our products? Even supposing that we should continue oil sands development and create pipelines as they are safer than transporting bitumen by train, I still am opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline. Bitumen transportation has no safety record and too much of BCs economy is based on its natural resources and tourism that would be severely damaged in a spill. It is simply too risky for BC to accept.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:There's clearly a lot of posters here that think we should leave the oil in the ground. I'd be curious to know the justification for that position over what the ANDP/Liberals are suggesting. Is it as I've just stated that any carbon pricing policies will be half measures that don't go far enough? Is is that we'll still be exporting to countries that could well be quite happy to burn our petroleum and contribute to climate change? On this last point I wonder if it's at all legal to put in place export restrictions on our products? In the long run and the grand scheme of human development, if we are to avoid cataclysmic climate change, the kind that could potentially kill or displace billions of people and fundamentally transform the way humanity lives for the worse, a hell of a lot of known oil reserves are going to need to stay in the ground forever. We as Canadians have zero influence over what Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, the United States, Iraq, Iran, etc., do with their oil. However, we do control what we do with our own oil. Our own oil also just so happens to be some of the dirtiest oil on the planet. Incidentally, focusing too much on extracting that oil has led to the ruin of much of Canada's diversified economy over the past decade, while having only transitory benefits for the people who were directly involved in extracting it. Therefore it makes sense for Canada to do our part to try and combat global warming by not promoting the extraction, sale, and use of the dirtiest oil on the planet. Instead it should be kept in the ground and we should focus on other forms of economic and energy development. This is the general thinking of posters here who think we should leave it in the ground, with variations of course, since everyone's individual views are unique.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:The NDP Socialist Caucus is cool and good, now they have 24 months to vet a perfect leader to stop Trudeau And replace him with a Strong, Stable Conservative Government.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:In the long run and the grand scheme of human development, if we are to avoid cataclysmic climate change, the kind that could potentially kill or displace billions of people and fundamentally transform the way humanity lives for the worse, a hell of a lot of known oil reserves are going to need to stay in the ground forever. I think the view of the policy wonks creating the ANDP/Liberal position on the oilsands is that by putting in place a carbon price, ~Canadian Innovation~ will make the oil sands no longer the dirtiest oil on the planet and we'll be able to export it while still meeting our climate change goals. If this innovation doesn't occur, and the price of oil remains low, then the mechanism of the carbon tax would effectively keep oil sands in the ground. If we ever got to this point however, I'd be pretty skeptical whether a politician would actually follow through raising or holding the carbon tax at a level that makes oil sands development unfeasible. We've seen in BC the carbon tax frozen for years for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
Have any canpol John Ralston Saul's considered bringing back debtors prisons to instill moral hazard in butt gently caress Labrador
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:We as Canadians have zero influence over what Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, the United States, Iraq, Iran, etc., do with their oil. This is a really damning point in that argument, especially as many countries are expanding into heavier oil. Even from an environmental point of view it sounds pointless if it just exchanges one source for another.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:The NDP Socialist Caucus is cool and good, now they have 24 months to vet a perfect leader to stop Trudeau  The NDP Socialist "caucus" is like 12 dorks in Toronto, none of whom have actually sat in an elected caucus anywhere in Canada. They will have marginal influence on any NDP Leadership contest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Sovy Kurosei posted:This is a really damning point in that argument, especially as many countries are expanding into heavier oil. Even from an environmental point of view it sounds pointless if it just exchanges one source for another. Uhh no. For one it isn't a equal exchange, since tar sands oil is so dirty. Other countries nay be expanding into it as you say, but right now Saudi oil, for example, barely needs to be refined. More importantly, saying it's pointless to try and solve a problem because nobody else is helping is retarded. With this reasoning nobody will do anything on climate change until everyone agrees- which unfortunately isn't far from the current situation. I see this argument all the time wrt arms control. If we don't sell weapons to the Saudis, someone else will! It's repugnant, and amounts to a policy of profit at any price. Which is also basically the situation now. We're allowed to, and should, take actions for moral reasons. And we should definitely take actions where the future of the entire loving planet is at stake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
But what about are precious oil jawbs 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
Hey how about we keep our lovely oil in the ground and instead gear ourselves up to capitalize on the fact that clean water sources and viable arable land are becoming increasingly scarce. Lets work on I don't know, using our massive hydro electric potential to run desalinization plants and run pipelines to our increasingly parched Americans, as well as developing better agricultural techniques to stave off the pretty much inevitable mass famine we'll be seeing within our lifetimes. Or spin up AECL to design and build newer and even safer reactors to power other countries desalinization plants once they realize how hosed they are. Or the dozens of other things that are needed that we were able to do in the past before we decided to do the most retarded thing a country can do which is to take a giant poo poo on every industry but one, extracting a resource that can be found at both a better price AND better quality pretty much anywhere else in the world, using methods that are extremely environmentally unfriendly and require a massive amount of effort and funding to clean up after the fact. Keep Canadian oil IN THE GROUND. gently caress carbon taxes, gently caress pipelines, gently caress the Canadian oilsands industry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
why don't you go study thermodynamics?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
quote:Notley's chief of staff Brian Topp told HuffPost he wasn't sure what had happened at the convention and that he had never seen anything like it in his nearly three decades with the party. Topp, a close friend and adviser to Layton ran against Mulcair for the leadership in 2012 and finished second. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Can he not?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
People all worried about the energy efficiency of tar sands and simultaneously jerking off to desalinization.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
I don't think I can make it through another Niki leadership campaign. Nine hours in and I'm already fed up. https://twitter.com/nikiashton/status/719378687330627584
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Dumping Mulcair only to replace him with Topp would be the worst timeline.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
What do NDP posters ITT not like about Topp and Ashton?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
Topp is a smarmy centrist fucker and Ashton is too much of a leftist poo poo disturber.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
THC posted:Topp is a smarmy centrist fucker and Ashton is too much of a leftist poo poo disturber. I am kind of shocked that every other poster here doesn't have their Trotsky-boner at full mast over the thought of a 'leftist poo poo-disturber' potential in charge of the NDP. Really hoping for a super Quebecois leader so the NDP can settle into its role as the new Quebec party (now with 80% less racism!) considering the Bloc doesn't look like its going to be any less of a smouldering poop fire in the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
THC posted:Ashton is too much of a leftist poo poo disturber. Wouldn't that be right up D&D's alley? IMO the NDP need both an improved vision and policy stances to go along with a young and vigorous leader. Their best shot, long-term, is getting the millennials down on lock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
I like Niki Ashton but that feeling is not shared by others itt
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
I didn't mind her during the last leadership campaign. I didn't think she was ready to be leader, but I'm not ruling out the possibility down the road.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2016 06:12
|
|